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

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

I think we are talking about the case where the tunnel works over NAT w/o need for UDP encapsulation.

About 60% of the NAT boxes that I tested have forwarded proto-41 w/o any problem or special configuration.

This could be documented as a possibility in RFC3053 (now is open in "known limitations", but not clear), and may be explored by the
tunnel broker or whatever is setting up the mechanism, in order to choose automatically this option or, if not available, UDP or
other alternatives.

It will be good to document what routers/models/vendors support this, but I'm not sure how to do that, as probably there are
hundreds or thousands of ;-)

Whatever is decided, I will be happy to work on this.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alain Durand" <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
To: "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw@windriver.com>
Cc: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>; "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@Sun.COM>; "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>; "JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>; <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: IPv6 Home Use to stimulate deployment over IPv4-NAT


> The unmanaged scenario, case A, calls for tunneling over UDP.
> 2 possible solutions are teredo or tunnel broker with tunneling over UDP.
>
> If we want to explore the tunnel broker solution, I do not think RFC3053
> needs an update. It is a framework document that explain the concept of
> tunnel broker.
> What is needed are two documents:
> - one that explain IPv6 over UDP over IPv4
> - one that described a simple automatic protocol to set up the
> configuration parameters
> between the client (access router) and the tunnel broker. A DHCPv4
> extension would work,
> somethink like marc blanchet's TSP protocol would work also. Maybe the
> first think to
> do is to work on some requirements for such a protocol.
>
>     - Alain.
>
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > At 12:59 PM 2/21/2003 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> >
> >> I caught that in the rfc too.  Yes we need an updated tunnel rfc or
> >> draft.
> >> Would that be valid work here ?  Chairs ?
> >
> >
> > I'm not quite sure what you are asking...  Are you asking
> > about an update to RFC 3053 that would explain how to use
> > it over a NAT?
> >
> > If the need for something like this is indicated by the
> > unmanaged or enterprise scenario/analysis efforts, we
> > would probably want to pursue this in v6ops (I can't
> > think of another WG that would be more appropriate).
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

*********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
12-14 May 2003 - Pre-register at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
Interested in participating or sponsoring ?
Contact us at ipv6@consulintel.es