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

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.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.

I am thinking like that too but have not broken tbrough it this is
clearly an idea I think worth pursuing.

> 
> > 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. 

ACK.

> 
> > 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.

I agree this is a very very good argument.  I want to do the same but I
need find DSL Router folks to make it work.  We both have done manual
config and 6to4.  But I am wondering if some kind of very very simple
code patch can make it so the DSL router can assist with the process.

/jim
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
>