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

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

This does not hold true with twice-nat correct?
thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Huitema
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:18 PM
> To: Erik Nordmark; Pekka Savola
> Cc: Alain Durand; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: v6 deployment in general [Re: tunnel broker 
> deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]]
> 
> 
> > > The problem is worse with transition mechanisms, 
> especially the ones 
> > > which traverse NATs, but the situation may improve as 
> soon as we can 
> > > get rid of them.  In any case, such mechanisms can 
> provide a stable 
> > > as long as they can keep the NAT/IP mappings stable -- 
> which is, for
> a
> > > properly designed application, maybe sufficient.
> > 
> > I guess I don't understand what "such mechanisms" refer to above.
> > I don't know if mechanisms like Teredo can provide a stable IPv6
> address
> > when the nat mappings change, but doing TB/UDP for nat traversal
> should be
> > able to provide stable IP addresses/prefixes in this case.
> 
> In practice the NAT mappings do not change and the Teredo 
> address remains reasonably stable.
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> 
>