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

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

> > It has to work with more than the IP header.
> 
> Uh? The Teredo routing works strictly with the IPv6 header. 
> If you send a packet to a Teredo relay, the relay will not 
> look at anything besides that header. The encapsulation runs 
> over UDP, but you may observe that many encapsulation 
> protocol run with "more than IP" -- L2TP, for example, runs over UDP.

There are many parts to Teredo that are not just a simple ecap (e.g.
bubbles, udp refresh to NAT).  I am not against Teredo and I believe it
has its case and use.

From -08.

----------------------------------------------
3.2.1	When to use Teredo?

Teredo is designed to robustly enable IPv6 traffic through NATs, and
the price of robustness is a reasonable amount of overhead, due to
UDP encapsulation and transmission of bubbles. Nodes that want to
connect to the IPv6 Internet SHOULD only use the Teredo service as a
"last resort" option: they SHOULD prefer using direct IPv6
connectivity if it is locally available or if it is provided by a
6to4 router co-located with the local NAT, and they SHOULD prefer
using the less onerous "6to4" encapsulation if they can use a global
IPv4 address.
-------------------------------------------------

It does have overhead.

I would just add that in addition to 6to4 Tunnel Brokers should be
listed above too.  Then the market will decide which one to use.

But to compare Teredo with a simple encap at a DSL router of an IPv6
packet to get it to a Tunnel broker that was established is no way the
overhead of Teredo.
What I say also should not discount Teredo and I supported and still
support it as a standards track document.  I believe it will take to
long and too complex for initial IPv6 deployment and looking for a more
simple solution.  You sent me mail that we care about deployment.  I say
exactly.
I read ahead and will respond to your economic case in that mail.

> > I am fine with client/server apps that run across many 
> nets.  I am not 
> > fine with transition solutions that try to attempt work around NAT.
> 
> Whether you cross the NAT using Teredo or using a tunnel does 
> not change anything to the fact that you "working around the NAT".

I was referring to the cost and single point of failure in depending on
a client server model.  Not working around only NAT.  Bad prefix to may
last statement.
I don't like ALGs either.  But willing now to compromise for Tunnel
Brokers for IPv6 deployment.

My main thinking is that the client simply sends IPv6 packets after
setting up its tunnel end points to communicate with IPv6 either at the
DSL router or the POP.  I want to see a fix suggestion for the DSL
router and POP.  

/jim