RE: draft-huitema-v6ops-unmaneval-00.txt

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> When it comes to traversing NAT, the issue is how to "come in", not how to
> "go out". AFAIK, teredo is the only solution that allows "self deploy"
> because it let UDP packets "come in". All the other solutions are variations
> on fixed tunnels, and thus require some form of contract between a user and
> a tunnel endpoint. You can clearly do PPP over TCP, but you can only do that
> if you initiate the connection from inside the NAT towards a fixed tunnel
> end-point; in that case, I believe that a UDP base tunnel will provide a
> lesser overhead, and will avoid the "head of line blocking" issues found in
> TCP. RFC 2893 tunneling only works with some NAT, and as such cannot be a
> generic solution.

While I disagree with your conclusion, the point of this email is merely
that the document doesn't seem to be consistent with what your conclusion.

Above you say that there is only one (type of) solution which solves
the problem. Yet the draft says that there are two: Teredo [TEREDO], or
UDP tunnels.
Did you intend that the draft say "Teredo which uses UDP tunnels" or
something like that?

   Erik