From: cr88192@hotmail.com   
      
   "Pascal Hambourg"  wrote in message   
   news:h72u2k$cq4$1@saria.nerim.net...   
   > [Follow-up to comp.protocols.tcp-ip]   
   >   
   > BGB / cr88192 a écrit :   
   >>   
   >> IPv6 could have been a lot more usable "right now" had a better means   
   >> been   
   >> devised to embed it into IPv4 (among other issues...).   
   >>   
   >> one such idea would be not using explicit tunnels and tunnel-brokering,   
   >> and   
   >> instead using implicit tunnels.   
   >   
   > Isn't it what 6to4 and Teredo do ?   
   >   
      
      
      
      
   after having looked around a bunch, I have found that "tunnel brokers" are   
   apparently not what I was looking for...   
      
   but, yes, the great problem with IPv6 is all of the pain one has to go   
   through trying to figure out how to get it set up and working...   
      
      
   it is not supported by ISPs, not supported by routers, ...   
      
   and, most info one can find is a bunch of tunnel brokers, many demanding   
   personal information, and failing to work once set up (them providing   
   specialized client apps which mysteriously fail and provide no good reason   
   for why they have failed...).   
      
   and many still fail to work through NAT (and, it is often the case that the   
   DMZ is a special resource fought over by whoever might happen to be behind   
   the same NAT router...).   
      
   (Torredo claims to work with NAT, 6to4 would not, however...).   
      
      
   but, yes, a lot of this is I suspect, a good reason for why IPv6 is not   
   catching on so quickly...   
      
      
   I guess it also doesn't help much that I am using an oddball version of   
   windows (XP x64), which apparently no one really bothers to support well   
   (including MS, where Messenger no longer supports it, ...).   
      
   or such...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)