Re: (ngtrans) remote netaccess-threats via automatictunneling

[Peter Bieringer]

--On Thursday, December 20, 2001 04:12:54 PM +0000 Ole Troan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>> 
>>    In this case, consider a node which has configured tunnels,
>>    autotunnel and  6to4.
>>    
>> => be serious, autotunnels are phased out, configured tunnels and
>> 6to4 are mutually exclusive...
> 
> mutually exclusive? I don't think so.
> 
> as was pointed out earlier as long as one uses a different IPv4
> source address for the different point to multi-point tunnelling
> mechanisms there is no problem demultiplexing the packet to the
> correct tunnel interface.

I use such scenario in real life for my home office network (dynamic
IPv4 on gateway).


configured (a static prefix):
homeoffice <-> tunnel.bieringer.de <-> 6bone

        +

6to4:
homeoffice <-> 6to4relay <-> 6bone

Works very well.

        Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------