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

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> 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.

In fact, we can probably adapt the Teredo spec so the same code can be
used for configured tunnels and for dynamic Teredo behavior.

> 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.

I was only referring to the point that not all encapsulations are
directly over IP. 

> 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.

In the IETF, we used to deal with arguments of complexity by considering
running code, rather than by theoretical debates. We have running code
for Teredo. I have used the code myself. I guess this meet at least 1/2
of the requirements -- the other 1/2 would be to prove Interop with an
independent implementation.

-- Christian Huitema