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

["Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>]

Erik Nordmark wrote:

> > The only thing is that the NAT box needs to know where to 
> send incoming
> > proto-41 packets to.
> > 
> > - Some NAT boxes can be configured with a 'default'.
> >   Those boxes will then forward any unrelated traffic to 
> that default
> > IP.
> 
> That's nice for those that have control of the NAT box.
> The Telco that provides me service at home provides me with a NAT box
> that they control - and they are uninterested in doing 
> anything special.
> I can't bypass/replace the NAT box because it speaks some odd 
> and probably proprietary stuff on the other side (it's an ISDN line).
> 
> So I prefer solutions that don't have to rely on configuration in
> the NAT box yet are simpler than Teredo.

Make a ssh/pptp/vtund/<fill in>/* tunnel to the outside and
route your packets over there. These mechanisms then ofcourse
should be supplied and supported by the Tunnel Broker in question.
So if we want a good deployment we need to support all of these
options (unfortunatly). Marc can you create such TSP drafts ?

Eg: draft-parent-blanchet-ngtrans-tsp-<application>-00.txt

Which means that an external application is needed for tunneling
the packets to the tunnel broker.

application ::= ssh|pptp|vtund|httptunnel|<fill in>

Some networks unfortunatly will want to avoid the possibility
of using them as a 'transit' service only, eg tunneling to a
friendly AS and then routing a own prefix over that, basically
only using the ISP's IP for the tunnel.

Sidenote:
IMHO you don't have a complete IPv4 internet connection
either as with your current setup you can't do most thing that
have an embedded IP in the packets (read: Netmeeting). Also
setting up your own SSH, apache, gameserver etc will not work :(
If I had a chance of ISP's in your situation I would surely
not go for them, I hate NAT's and I require at least one
public IPv4 thats completely unfiltered. In your current
situation they could have put you all their customers
behind a big rfc1918 subnet and NAT there too and that is
what I call localnet access (with an internet gate) and not
internet access.

Greets,
 Jeroen