Subject: RE: Teredo spec has been published!

From: "Bora Akyol" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:54:37 -0800

I think it would be bad if the Teredo prefix was announced via eBGP.
Each domain is supposed to announce
the Teredo prefix within the domain, not outside, if I understood it
correctly. I would also expect
each AS to filter out the announced prefix.

Bora
 
----------------------------------------------------------

	This problem, for example,
	1. Based on current Teredo spec, the core router in an IPv6
network shall advertise 2001:0000::/32 route through BGP4+ to other
ASes, to ensure the connectivity of its own Teredo users. Also, I think
it's better for the core router to also act as a Teredo relay router,
otherwise too many static routes have to be configured. But how can  we
expect the IPv6 core router to have the native IPv4 connection?

---

From: haofeng Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:34:04 +0800

Hi Bora,

I think every AS which has Teredo users should announce Teredo prefix via
eBGP.
Only by this way an IPv6 node can find the closest path to a Teredo client.

Within the domain, the eBGP router can use other routing protocol to ensure
the traffic destinated to Teredo client can reach Teredo relay router.

Haofeng Zhang

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:53:44 -0800

> I think every AS which has Teredo users should announce Teredo prefix
via eBGP.
> Only by this way an IPv6 node can find the closest path to a Teredo
client.

The spec is purposely vague. May decide to announce reachability of the
Teredo prefix in eBGP/IPv6, but they should obviously only do so if they
are ready to accept and relay teredo traffic. This will be very similar
to announcing the 6to4 relay prefix in eBPG/IPv4, and probably requires
the same kind of logistics.

-- Christian Huitema