[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last Call: 'Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs' to Proposed Standard (fwd)
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 09:21, ext Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 22:07, EricLKlein wrote:
> > General comment:
> > As IPv6 does not support NAT in any native form I would like to see the term
> > NAT replaced with IPv4 NAT through out the docuement, and a comment at the
> > start to the effect that there is no such thing as IPv6 NAT.
>
> NAT is an IPv4 only thing, there must be no IPv6 NAT, better to not name
> it separately IMHO.
I do agree with this.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Final comment:
> > I am also unclear why it is assumed that UDP is the prefered protocol. UDP
> > has no retransmits, so lost packets will stay lost while TCP has retransmit
> > based on acknowledgements. WHy force this on UDP?
>
> Because the IP protocol running inside UDP will take care of the
> retransmits and if you are doing IPv6 over TCP you will need to reorder
> packets, keep connections open, state etc.
In addition, there are many other implications. These include running
tcp over tcp that might produce unpredictable results, running protocol
that doesn't need/want retransmissions and would actually suffer from
retransmissions - e.g. RTP.
Cheers,
Jonne.
>
> Greets,
> Jeroen
--
Jonne Soininen
Nokia
Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com