Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:22:50 +0200 From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr> To: Brian Zill <bzill@microsoft.com> Cc: "'f.johan.beisser'" <jan@caustic.org>, Brad Huntting <huntting@hunkular.glarp.com>, snap-users@kame.net, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com Subject: Re: 6over4 for KAME (FreeBSD) Message-ID: <200010281622.SAA29597@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:40:23 PDT. <CB7153628BD3724096258CBFD70AA891041DB8@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010281622.SAA29597>