On 2011-03-24 04:46, Tim Chown wrote:
> 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.
Sure. I run a tunnel from home. But I had to configure it. Normal
users don't have to configure a solution like 6a44; as in the case of
6rd, only the ISP has to do careful config and management. The idea is
to do for Teredo what 6rd does for 6to4.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
