Re: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

As for my personal view, it's a).

Reasons for this are:
 - other, simpler ways will be specified that will be able to do NAT 
   traversal and provide connectivity in the scenario where your ISP 
   would be willing to provide a tunnel.  I.e., Teredo only needs to 
   solve the scenario where you have no ISP to get v6
   connectivity.
 - it's already out there by the million, and the only economically 
   feasible way to bring the IPv6 to the masses i.e. bring out the 
   IPv6-only applications without which we'll have very hard time
   getting IPv6 _really_ there.   Waiting for all the ISPs in the 
   world to deploy v6 before there is clear market demand isn't going 
   to cut it.  The chicken-and-egg problem must be tackled somehow, 
   and this provides a means to do that.
 - current Teredo specification is reasonably secure, in practice
   performing a "return routability check"; much better than 6to4 in 
   any case, and comparable or higher than many others we have.
 - the analysis on the deployment tradeoffs is already far along to 
   be able to say that we will have to pay the "cost" for dealing 
   with {native,6to4,Teredo} in any case.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
>  a) Go forward with Teredo, hone the deployment implications in the 
>     unmanaged analysis in parallel (if and as appropriate),