On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 08:31, rengrong wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In draft-liumin-v6ops-silkroad-01.txt it is said that Silkroad wants to enable nodes located behind one or several IPv4 NATs to obtain IPv6 connectivity and it seems like a tunnel-broker solution.
> It is known that Teredo is a automatic tunnel mechanism that figures out the same problem.
>
At first I thought that you where mixing up shipworm and Teredo, which
are the same but have been renamed due to the fact that 'shipworm' is
more easily related to something viral than something good, which Teredo
is ;)
They are quite different though and though it looks the same it is
something different, it seems to be more of an addon seems to me.
At a first glance mind you, it seems IMHO to be overly complex too.
> What's the difference between Silkroad and Teredo?
I suggest you read section 7.4 of the draft as it is stated there
completely. Main issue is address stability apparently:
Something peculiar, quote:
8<-----------
In fact, although Teredo can minimize the fraction of
traffic routing through the servers, it need Teredo relays in every
IPv6 network to receive traffic destined to Teredo clients and
forward it using the Teredo service, which needs to update the
existing infrastructure.
------------>8
The Teredo prefix that is used is globally announced using normal IPv6
routing tables, thus as long as there is some kind of transit service
this is no issue.
PS: note for the authors, the draft uses non RFC3330 /
draft-huston-ipv6-documentation-prefix addressing.
It is a should on the id-checklist but still.
Greets,
Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part