On 22 Mar 2011, at 07:47, Ole Troan wrote: > 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?
Or TSP... the 'managed tunnelling through a NAT' problem is solved today by thousands of IPv6 tunnel broker users who use services provided by providers like SixXS or HE. We have students using these to access some of our services from their home DSL networks via IPv6, because it's so much more robust than 6to4. The drawback though is that some user action (registration, etc) is generally required. There's in interesting feature comparison chart that SixXS drew up here: http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=comparison. Tim _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
