RE: 6to4 being replaced by Teredo only? [Re: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]

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

then change the subject title and discussion.  I don't think it is
possible to do here in less than 4 years.  By then it will be a moot
point.  

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:17 PM
> To: Rob Austein
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: 6to4 being replaced by Teredo only? [Re: 
> Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]
> 
> > Terado is excessively complex for the case of a user who wants IPv6 
> > capability from an IPv4-only ISP and has the ability to replace the 
> > NAT box.  Yes, Terado could probably be used in this case 
> instead of 
> > 6to4; pigs also fly just fine, given sufficient thrust 
> [RFC1925], but 
> > that doesn't make either of these a good idea.
> 
> Since I feel responsible for triggering Pekka's question let 
> me try to explain myself.
> 
> In a world with native, 6to4, and teredo we need to be 
> concerned with the operational issues of gettting relays 
> deployed to enable communication between the 3 different universes:
>  - native to/from 6to4
>  - native to/from teredo
>  - 6to4 to/from teredo
> 
> Can we simplify the deployment of these so that we can reduce 
> the likelyhood of ending up with a partitioned IPv6 Internet?
> A possibly way to simply this would be to have a single type 
> of relay which can relay between all three.
> Using the same relay hopefully doesn't change how deployed 
> 6to4 routers work.
> 
>    Erik
> 
> 
> 
>