RE: An alternative to 6to4 and teredo

["Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>]

Pekka Savola wrote:

<SNIP>

> Well.. I don't think you can get it much easier than 'echo 
> IPV6TO4INIT=yes >> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0' or the
like; 
> that's all you need to enable 6to4 using the anycast address on
certain operating
> systems.  No software needed, no nothing: IPv6 in 5 seconds.
> 
> Of course "actually works" is relative.

Pinging the endpoint of the tunnel and/or the relay should show that
it's up enough. if the tb/relay isn't setup correctly there isn't
much one can do about it anyways.

> Perhaps, to focus, we should ask ourselves: do we want to provide a
> mechanism that provides easy use for the case where:
>  1) Joe User wants to use his closest Tunnel Broker that 
> allows him to use
> the service (not knowing where this closest TB even is!), or
>  2) Joe User digs out the tunnel broker address/hostname of 
> his ISP or 
> someone close by and starts to use the service
> 
> From my observation point, 6to4 is ultimately superior at 1), 
> at least in locations where you have some deployment of 6to4 relays
(here 
> in Finland, there are at least two advertising 192.88.99.0/24 and
2002::/16).

Well one should not limit "Tunnel Brokers" to systems using 6in4 (IPv6
in IPv4)
IMHO there should/can/could be a mechanism that works somewhat like:

C: Connect to central service
S: I've X tunnelbrokers for you
S: The best is number 10
C: Request 10
S: type = 6to4
S: ipv4_pop = 10.1.1.1

or:
S: type = 6in4
S: ipv4_pop = 10.1.1.1
S: ipv6_pop = fec0::1
S: ipv6_client = fec0::1
S: prefixlen = 64
S: subnet = fec0:1000:1::/48

Or something similar. Note that one can take a good look at TSP for
this.

> Note that to be practical, 1) seems to require that there is some
> mechanism of autodiscovering tunnel broker services.  Surfing 
> the web is a no-go.

Depends on the fact if there is a central face for the thing.
Indeed googling around for such a setup is a no-go.

Btw: on debian: apt-get install freenet6 and you are off.
Apparently there are also Win32, *BSD and other clients.

Maybe we should purssue a similiar or derived protocol like TSP?
Note that there is 1 problem here: Central Point-Of-Failure if
the central server providing the TB lists goes down/overloaded etc.
In that case 6to4 is quite good, if one can reach the anycast address
then one can have 6to4 too in most cases. As for the 'highlatency'
one should restrict their 6to4 relay too peers so that people in
austrialia simply don't see any 6to4 relay at all at the moment.
IMHO none is better as the switch.ch relay with massive overhead.

In any case if we want to see global low-latency tunnelbroker setups
there have to be deployments of those TB's/relays close to the user.

Greets,
 Jeroen