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.

Why do you think Silkroad need more relays and servers than Teredo?


> 
> 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
>