Hi Tim, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Chown > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 8:46 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG Review: Recharter of Softwires (softwire) > > > 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.
VET and SEAL (as the core mechanisms behind IRON) also provide a "managed tunneling through NAT" solution like TSP and L2TP, but they also provide much more than that. With VET and SEAL, the Client sets up a managed tunnel to a nearby Server. But rather than sending everything through its own Server, the Client dynamically discovers a Server that is nearer the final destination as a means of having a more optimal route. With VET and SEAL, a provider like SixXS or HE could distribute Servers globally throughout the Internet and allow Clients to discover and utilize those that are topologically close. This would balance the Server load, and dynamic route optimization would maintain generally shortest-path routes. Other benefits include: - native (i.e., non-IPv4-embedded) IPv6 prefixes - IPvANY-within-IPvANY encapsulation - mobility management - Client multihoming - traffic engineering - tunnel MTU handling - security I would therefore like to see a charter item for the completion of VET and SEAL within the softwire wg. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > 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 > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
