RE: IPv6 Home Use to stimulate deployment over IPv4-NAT

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Bound, Jim wrote:
> ...
> I will build different solution other than Teredo.  Teredo is 
> to complex and breaks a 2 rules for me I use as network 
> engineer/architect for v6ops solutions. 1) We should NEVER 
> use or access port numbers to get things done but only use 
> the IP header whereever possible. 

Well it is arguable that teredo violates this rule, since the origin
application port is not referenced. The fact that it uses the available
port id bits in the IPv4-UDP encapsulation header to construct the IPv6
address is really a function of the application in the encapsulating
endpoint. 

> 2)Client/Server protocol 
> soulutions should only be developed for v6ops solutions, 
> where the client and server are in the same network domain. 

While this may be a reasonable restriction for a corporate marketing
decision, it makes no sense for a standards effort. The whole point for
people to move to IPv6 is so that there are no topological restrictions
placed on nodes, particularly servers. If one required all servers to
live in the same domain as their clients, all web access would require a
proxy. v6ops needs to be about building the infrastructure tools and
configurations so that IPv6 applications are unaware of the activities
going on at the packet handling level. 


> Teredo breaks both of these principles for me.
> 
> ISATAP is to robust for home use and I do not see it being 
> used there at this time. I do see it in other environments 
> for sure (e.g. Military, Manufacturing, Robotics, and a few 
> others I know interested in ISATAP).
> 
> The home user scenario is clear and well understood. 
> 
> The solution I will proprose will cause NO changes to the 
> client code and will exist in the NAT and POP.  The idea is 
> to view it as NAT+IPV6 not working around NAT.  This has been 
> an error in our thinking model (mine included). 

Well, it is exactly the model of 6to4. You are adding the wrinkle of the
home edge being behind a nat, which tunnel broker deals with.

>  The solution 
> will drive as the underlying end mechanisms to either be 
> Native IPv6 or 6to4 which are cohesive also with v6ops 
> direction and current work.  Note Teredo and ISATAP are not 
> at this time.  I will suggest it and bring it as idea and 
> solution IETF can reject it if it is not good, whether it is 
> used is another matter. I only say that because this is a 
> real deployment problem for home use.  

Yes and no. Yes the case exists where a home edge nat/router is behind a
nat, and we need a solution, but no we can't assume that even the home
edge nat is upgradable, as in docsis cable modems. The fact that v6ops
is too highly focused on router upgrade solutions is due to the lack of
appreciation for the breadth of the problem space. The whole point of
the scenario design teams was to provide descriptive documents to help
educate about this breadth, but several vocal participants have chosen
to dismiss them as out of line with a directive that all deployments
must fit a single mold. 

> 
> I am now going to propose to a few providers to get feedback 
> (my own included in NH) and a few home router vendors that we 
> are building connections to via the IPv6 Forum. This will 
> take me some time.

I am not going to discourage new concepts, but take a hard look at the
identity/allocation issues that are solved in tunnel broker, and make
sure any new approach works at least that well.

Tony


> 
> P.S. If anyone here on the list is interested in working on 
> this let me know and there are others not on this list.  thanks
> 
> Regards,
> /jim
>