[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv6 tunnel over NAT
> > well, obviously it depends on the applications being run and the
> > quality of the underlying links. if you're running real time apps
> > over UDP over PPP over TCP over a lossy IP link, you'd probably
> > be much happier using Teredo. do we really want to say, for instance,
> > that it's okay for the generic solution to break streaming audio?
>
> a) Begs the question of whether any of our transition tools are robust
> enough to support serious real-time streaming use.
6to4 has a fixed overhead/delay per packet. Teredo and NATs probably do also.
> b) PPP/TCP looks like a reliable link with very erratic timing
> characteristics. I'm fairly certain that unidirectional streaming
> protocols can deal with that via buffering (so that it's not real
> time anymore). Whether the deployed implementations can or not is
> another matter.
PPP/TCP considerably amplifies the amount of jitter in the underlying
network. In general, apps that are jitter sensitive will do worse
with PPP/TCP (assuming any significant jitter or packet loss in the
underlying network) than any per-packet tunneling or translation mechanism.
Keith