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

[Paul Timmins <paul@timmins.net>]

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 10:29, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> 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.

I agree here as well. I've seen -alot- of firewalls that either block,
or don't statefully forward proto-41. Even if they did, that limits IPv6
to one end user behind the NAT. If I was using this at a Mariott for
example, they NAT the users of their in room ethernet. I'd be
disappointed if someone else was using v6 tunneling in the hotel,
because it means I couldn't (Assuming they forward proto-41 to begin
with). With UDP tunneling, we could both have our own tunnels. I think a
limitation on how many machines behind a NAT can have a tunnel would
slow transition in places like this, because if I were offering
enterprise services over v6, and had my employees tunneling back to the
office, I'd be pretty upset if they couldn't get their job done because
another employee (or just another user, depending on the proto-41
forwarding implementation) has a tunnel open at the hotel at the same
time.

My 0.02.
-Paul

-- 
Paul Timmins
paul@timmins.net / http://www.timmins.net/
H: 313-586-9514 / C: 248-379-7826 / DC: 130*116*24495
AIM: noweb4u / Callsign: KC8QAY