On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Marc Manthey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Eric Anopolsky <erpo41 at gmail.com> >> What do you all think about using IPv6 for this purpose? > > i need to second that , thats sounds like a great idea ;) > what would be required ? > cheers > Marc > F.Y.I.
If both hosts have public IPv6 addresses then NAT penetration is not required. On the server side, cspace needs to publish the host's IPv6 address to the DHT. On the client side, cspace needs to look for and connect to the IPv6 address stored in the DHT for a given user. Note that cspace may be used on an operating system that supports teredo natively, in which case it would appear to cspace that the host has a public IPv6 address. This is good. For hosts that don't have public IPv6 addresses running operating systems that either don't support teredo or are configured to disable teredo, cspace would have to include a userspace IPv6 stack and teredo client. Using these, the cspace daemon could obtain an IPv6 address independently of the rest of the system. The biggest benefit is that cspace could take advantage of a capable and well-tested system for NAT penetration without requiring intermediate relays to carry all of the traffic or unnecessary latency. A side benefit would be another step towards wider deployment of IPv6. The reason I like teredo more than other IPv6 in IPv4 schemes is that it doesn't require any configuration by the user and it doesn't require the user to register with a tunnel broker. Cheers, Eric _______________________________________________ cspace-users mailing list [email protected] http://tachyon.in/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cspace-users
