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

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

> 
> > If we have tunnel brokers we don't need teredo right?  
> That's my take 
> > now.

Clarification.  I mean't for initial deployment jump start.  Which was
the context of my whole thread here.  I can envision many reasons for
Teredo.

> 
> We have debated that many times. The issue is economics, and 
> more precisely the trade-off between how much software you 
> write and how much bandwidth you require from the tunnel 
> server. A Teredo host only uses the Internet bandwidth that 
> was already paid by its owner to the local ISP; a tunnel host 
> uses that bandwidth, plus an equal amount at the end of the 
> tunnel. That may be OK if the tunnel is provided by the same 
> ISP that provides the user connection; but in all other 
> cases, the user ends up with having the equivalent of two ISP 
> subscriptions.

As far as debating issues many times.  That means nothing to me.  We
have debated so many issues so many times on so many topics in the IETF.
Are you watching the multi6 email exchange, as one of many examples
:--).    

I agree with your trade off logic for engineering above.

On Teredo bandwidth.  But each ISP would have to have a Teredo Server?

--------------------------------------------------
2.3	Teredo Server

A node that has access to the IPv4 Internet through a globally
routable address, and that is used as a helper to provide IPv6
connectivity to Teredo clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------

So each ISP would need one?

And:

---------------------------------------------------------------
3.2.3	Minimal load on servers

During the peak of the transition, there will be a requirement to
deploy a large number of servers throughout the Internet. Minimizing
the load on the server is a good way to facilitate this deployment.
To achieve this goal, servers should be as stateless as possible,
and they should also not be required to carry any more traffic than
necessary. To achieve this objective, we request that servers only
enable the packet exchange between clients, but do not carry the
actual data packets: these packets will have to be exchanged
directly between the Teredo clients, or through a destination-
selected relay for exchanges between Teredo clients and other IPv6
clients.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like it will require a lot of servers too during peak.  What I am
driving is lets do it without all these servers before the "peak"
(defined as in the above from Teredo).  Not that Teredo does not have
purpose.

Contrary to many opinions most average home users do have one ISP and
many new users are going be in an economic condition that does not
warrant support for two ISPs.  Most non technical/computer professionals
I know do not have two ISPs so I question this fact stated and have to
see real polls and analysis.  But even if true the Tunnel Broker is cost
effective for that case. Regarding use of the end tunnel I am not sure I
agree with this cost metric, but the point is if it works then use it,
and it harms nothing.  What I believe is that a Tunnel Broker strategy
can assist to get IPv6 deployed for home use far faster than use of
Teredo for initial deployment and use.

That in turn gives the ISP and other Providers a means to request their
IPv6 prefixes and use their entrepreneurial skills with IPv6 for their
end users. If they all have to deploy Teredo and other complex schemes
they will wait longer to get started.

Now I envision Teredo use in IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence for Savy Home
Users, Small Businesses, Enterprise Intranets that are NAT'd, and a dual
stack path around IPv4 NAT in some mission critical environments where
as the Teredo draft states there is no other choice.  It is an important
tool for IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence.

I believe for Home Use we need something very simple that is a no
brainer to understand and very simple for operations at the ISP and
operations by the Home User.

Regards,
/jim