Re: Opportunistic Tunneling

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>]

-- Thursday, February 19, 2004 16:34:24 +0200 Pekka Savola
<pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote/a ecrit:

> Responding a to few points you raised..
> 
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> I believe proto-41 is also one of the proposals on the table for
>> both unmanaged and 3GPP.
>> 
>> For example, TSP can make use of it. We also have a Tunnel Broker
>> implementation that does.
> 
> Note that while proto-41 forwarding is probably useful in e.g. 
> unmanaged scope in general, it is not really applicable to this 
> specific topic, "opportunistic tunneling", where the tunneling is 
> autoomatic, and requires no supporting ISPs.  E.g., tunnel brokers are 
> out of scope for this topic.

- why? 
- again, TSP in anonymous mode is as automatic as isatap/teredo/6to4: the
clients all need the knowledge of at least one IPv4 address. (One of them
needs two, but that is not the point).

- with TSP, you could "upgrade" to authentication which would provide you
additional functionalities, such as permanent ip address, prefix delegation
for your mobile network, etc... 

Marc.

> 
> Ignoring proto-41 however...
> 
> [...]
>> When users start moving with IPv6 devices, we need to ensure that
>> they are able to use it, despite what network they are sitting on.
>> 
>> I've this experience myself, traveling ... and I can solve it
>> manually most of the time, but the users don't know how to. It
>> should be automatic.
>> 
>> There are already applications that only work with IPv6, a few at
>> the time being, but more coming, for sure. The reason is that you
>> need addresses, for example to access multiple devices that are
>> located behind a NAT box.
> 
> I totally agree (about part of your statement) that tunneling should 
> just work, whether the user is behind NAT or not.
> 
> However, regarding this discussion, I'm not sure if you're actually 
> taking a stance whether you you believe a mechanism like 6to4 or 
> Teredo is *required*.  That is, do you think the users must be able to 
> switch on IPv6, without any interaction with any ISP, and have it work 
> (at least with a subset of other IPv6 users)?  Or do you think the 
> user can be required to get a "tunnel broker" -like service (or 
> whatever) from some ISP explicitly?
>  
> [...]
>> In Euro6IX we are already working around this idea, but we don't
>> have a draft ready for this meeting, unfortunately. Basically we
>> call it "auto-transition". We need to ensure that the best possible
>> transition mechanism work automatically at any time, in any network.
> [...]
> 
> Yep -- this is pretty important work, and one important issue in the 
> unmanaged evaluation document (spanning both "opportunistic" and 
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 



------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Hexago
tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------