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

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

It sounds like getting providers to support TB is a mission? As initial
step?
/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen@unfix.org] 
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: 'Erik Nordmark'
> Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: IPv6 Home Use to stimulate deployment over IPv4-NAT
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>