Hi Ole, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ole Troan > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:48 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG Review: Recharter of Softwires (softwire) > > Brian, > > > It seems that a real world problem case is not covered by this > > update: tunneling v6 over v4 when there is a legacy CPE NAT > in the way, > > in an ISP-managed way (unlike Teredo). At the moment this is a well > > known but orphaned problem, which will remain with us until the last > > NAT44-only consumer CPE device has gone. > > > > It's certainly the case that this scenario doesn't quite match > > RFC 4925 and doesn't need to "support all combinations of > IP versions > > over one other." However, that is just a matter of charter > wordsmithing. > > > > Nit: there's a reference to NAT-PT; maybe it should be > NAT64 these days. > > that was the problem one set out to solve with RFC5571 (L2TP). > what's missing from that solution?
VET and SEAL address this space. With VET and SEAL, you get a per-packet nonce so that off-path spoofing of IPv6 addresses is disabled even if IPv4 source address spoofing is possible. You also get a path MTU discovery method that does not depend on links and routers in the middle of the network. Also route optimization, mobility management, IPv6 prefix delegation, multiple interface support, and more. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > cheers, > Ole > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
