[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-03.txt
On Dec 5, 2004, at 8:11 AM, EricLKlein wrote:
Margaret,
I am still a little uncomfortable about the fact that there is no
explicit
statement that "teredo is needed because NAT was deprecated in IPv6
I have never seen any such statement in any RFC defining IPv6.
so
teredo is needed to allow IPv6 nodes to communicate with IPv4 nodes in
a
domain that utilizes NAT."
This is still true in section 3.2.4 Automatic sunset.
Some how this whole section scares me as it seems to imply that there
is a
way to turn an IPv4 NAT into an IPv6 Router while maintaining the NAT
like
functionality. As stated above, NAT is not part of IPv6 (NAP is but is
still
not mentioned in this document).
3 points:
a) nothing will ever prevent anyone from inventing/using IPv6 NAT one
day
b) when the v4 NAT gets upgraded to do also v6, it still does v4 NAT...
this functionality does not go away...
c) The only (minor) point I have with section 3.2.4 is with the
sentence:
"upgrading the
Internet connection used by the NAT to a native IPv6 service,"
If the 'upgraded' NAT provides v6 connectivity via a configured tunnel
(maybe using the tunnel set up protocol we want to design in v6tc)
teredo will also detect it (by seeing a native RA on the internal
network)
and turn itself off.
So I would suggest to simply remove the work 'native' from the above
sentence.
- Alain,