Subject: Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:43:01 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Kenneth Voort <[email-masked]>

    > future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to reach the IPv6
    > Internet from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps
    > tunneling, with no or minimal administrator intervention.

<Innocent face=on>
You mean, like with 6to4?
<Innocent face=off>

(Sorry, couldn't resist! :-)

	Noel

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:17:18 -0700

[distribution narrowed to FUN list]

> You mean, like with 6to4?

Actually, I suspect that operator hostility to 6to4 is high enough that devising some stealthier means of making their dumb IPv4-only networks serve our higher purposes will be necessary.  I joke that we should use a stylized audio feedback that reminds the listener of an old acoustic modem when signaling the establishment of such a tunnel, because that's a pretty good metaphor for what we'd be doing.

I suspect it wouldn't take much to adapt 6RD to these ends.  Remember, 6RD tunnels do *not* need to be terminated by the provider network.  They can be terminated by a third-party with minimal human interface burden.  Perhaps I should find the time to write a draft on the topic.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, core os networking

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:26:48 +0200

Hi James,

> I suspect it wouldn't take much to adapt 6RD to these ends.
> Remember, 6RD tunnels do*not*  need to be terminated by the provider
> network.  They can be terminated by a third-party with minimal human
> interface burden.  Perhaps I should find the time to write a draft on
> the topic.

Finding a time to write a draft is a great idea. However I think even 
better idea would be to find and wiki the list of actual providers 
anyone could terminate his 6RD to.

R.

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:13:20 +0900

> I suspect it wouldn't take much to adapt 6RD to these ends.  Remember, 6RD tunnels do *not* need to be terminated by the provider network.  They can be terminated by a third-party with minimal huma…

+1

This plus the idea of being able to map a public v6 address to an
internal IPv4 address (the home gateway does the address family
translation) and folks could have all manner of broader access that
just what portmapping allows.

If the mechanism could resync and adjust accordingly when the public
IPv4 address changes (probably involving dyndns.org-like updates),
then why not have multiple named webservers running at home (all on
v6, port 80)?

Things get more complicated if there's a CGN in the picture, but that
could be addressed by separate efforts.