Re: IPv6 tunnel over NAT

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
> >> The question is whether IPv6/PPP/xyz/TCP is good enough for the
> >> particular case of hosts stuck behind a NAT that they cannot remove or
> >> upgrade.  I think that the answer in this case may well be "yes".
> >
> >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?
> 
> 	the use of TCP doesn't really change the situation to streaming audio.
> 	if you see how many layers of encapsulations we are using for DSL
> 	services (take a look at diagrams in draft-mickles-v6ops-isp-cases-01)
> 	i think you will agree with me.  it's a horrible world.

How many of those layers perform error correction (retransmission) 
measures like TCP does if there is a problem at a lower layer?  End-to-end 
retransmissions?  Right.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords