From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Oct 28 9:23:57 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from melimelo.enst-bretagne.fr (melimelo.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.115.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EB137B479 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rsm.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (rsm.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.1]) by melimelo.enst-bretagne.fr (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e9SGMPY28939; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:22:25 +0200 Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [193.52.74.194]) by rsm.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA02250; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:22:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29597; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:22:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr) Message-Id: <200010281622.SAA29597@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Brian Zill Cc: "'f.johan.beisser'" , Brad Huntting , snap-users@kame.net, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com Subject: Re: 6over4 for KAME (FreeBSD) In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:40:23 PDT. Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:22:50 +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In your previous mail you wrote: My recollection is that an implementation of 6over4 for some BSD flavor exists, since I recall someone performing some interoperability testing between our implementation and that implementation. => I did some interoperability testing at the interim meeting in Tokyo using a 3Com multicast router (for fun!). I can remember details, only it was very soon in the morning... UCLA sounds familiar. => I got one day the CAIRN code but when I tried to port it to FreeBSD 3.x I discovered I had only some parts then I kept only the name (virtual Ethernet -> vet) which is in fact the (first/only) thing needed to implement a new flavor of IPv6 over IPv4 (I have 4 different ones :-). Aren't two interoperating implementations a requirement for Proposed Standard? (RFC 2529 is at PS) I'm not aware of any others offhand, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some. => Cisco supported this but this was removed... Obviously 6to4 (a *different* thing) is far more popular (for bad reasons IMHO). Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message