Re: v6 deployment in general [Re: tunnel broker deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Florent Parent wrote:
> No one is trying to "outsmart" ISPs. To add to Erik comment: whether it's 
> the nat mapping or whatever event occurs that changes your IPv4 
> address/port, the point is that TB + nat traversal can guarantee that the 
> user will have a stable IPv6 address/prefix. The user IPv6 address is tied 
> with the user identification, not to its (temporary) IPv4 address (and port 
> number).  This feature (stable IPv6 address/prefix) is an important benefit 
> to the end-users, IMHO.

There are tradeoffs to consider here, of course.. e.g.:

 - signalling overhead required when tying the v6 prefix to something 
else than IPv4 address, port or something like that.

 - user authentication overhead and management complexity.

 - the recovery time; i.e., how long does it take to detect something
bad has happened?  How long does it take to recover from this
incident?  Note that unless this is very quick, the result may
actually be pretty close to IPv6 address changing (if e.g. the TCP
connections get broken in the meantime) -- and all we might not
actually gain much in the "ISP is changing the address on the fly"  
-case.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings