On 17/07/13 21:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
...
Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the
specification of Teredo, I was quite impressed by the details (If
you accept the premise that you have to work around being jailed
behind an IPv4 NAT) put into the protocol. One detail was that it
is supposed to be lowest priority and so go automatically away
(from the client end) as soon as some configued IPv6 is available
on the link.
Isn't that how it's implemented?
Yes, but the result is that the host tries to use Teredo preferentially
even if the IPv4 path is better; and if the Teredo path is broken
That is the opposite of how it's supposed to work. Teredo addresses
should be de-pref'd below everything else, and would thus only be used
for connection to IPv6-only hosts if the host lacked other IPv6
connectivity.
As someone else has pointed out, maybe it gets used for IPv6 literals,
but not hostnames - the RFC 3484 table on windows ensures this.
