[Cerowrt-devel] [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document

[JF Tremblay]

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I currently plan to enable some form of ipv6 translation by default in
> the next version of cerowrt - and make direct access optional - (or
> the reverse! I'm easy ) if somehow we get it together enough to
> actually have a way to do a cerowrt-scale effort again.
> 
> Any objections here? Suggestions for how to make one of the ipv6
> translation techniques work right?

By IPv6 translation, do you mean a NAT66 stateless prefix translation as described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296> ? 

That could be useful for people like me behind a 6RD /60, I wouldn’t mind trying it with an internal ULA and see how it behaves. Not sure how current implementations behave though. 

JF


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20150303/1095d7d0/attachment-0002.html>