RE: Teredo vs Silkroad

["Liu Min" <liumin@ict.ac.cn>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf
> Of Christian Huitema
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 11:58 PM
> To: Eiffel Wu; pekkas@netcore.fi
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Teredo vs Silkroad
> 
> From an analysis of the drafts, it appears that silkroad is closer to
> tunnel brokers than to Teredo. Silkroad relies on the deployment of a
> large number of relays and servers, that become part of the ISP
> infrastructure: this is very similar to the deployment of tunnel
servers
> by the ISP. It provides pretty much the same advantages as tunnel
> brokers, i.e. stable addresses and robust tunneling across different
> types of infrastructure.

There is no relay in Silkroad. 

Is Teredo the mechanism to be used by the ISP to provide v6 to his
customers, or is it meant to be used by those users whose ISP/3GPP
operator does not support v6 (or these mechanisms) at all?


> 
> The part of Silkroad that somewhat resemble Teredo is the routing
> optimization between the tunnel servers (called SAR in silkroad). I
> don't think that this is particularly valuable: once you have reached
an
> ISP router, you would expect normal routing protocols to take over and
> route packets along the optimal path. In fact, this feature will be
> perceived as detrimental by many ISP, since it makes their network
> management more complex than necessary.
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
>