Subject: Would someone help the secretariat figure out why they cannot route to teredo addresses?

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:50:00 -0400 (EDT)

Hi.  I opened a ticket with the secretariat a few weeks ago
complaining that I cannot reach www.ietf.org using a teredo address
either allocated through the Microsoft Teredo server or the Debian
teredo server.

This is annoying because glibc's source address selection algorithm
seems to prefer teredo addresses to v4 addresses.  So, I get really
bad response times to www.ietf.org when using teredo.

Based on the responses to the ticket, it was not entirely clear if the
people at NSS understood how teredo differs from a normal IPV6
address.  I just don't have time to work with them to debug the
problem.

Is there someone out there with significant IPV6 experience who can
reproduce the problem and who would be willing to work with NSS to
resolve?

I want to reiterate that NSS has been incredibly helpful.  They are
willing to work with me, I just don't have time to explain Teredo and
be responsive.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:01:32 +0200

I can work on that.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon,  1 Oct 2007 13:50:00 -0400 (EDT)
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Would someone help the secretariat figure out why they cannot route to
> teredo addresses?
> 
> 
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:24:48 +0300

> bad response times to www.ietf.org when using teredo.

To make a long short, that depends on your glibc version. As far as I 
remember, RFC3484 was implemented in version 2.4. Configurable policy in 
version 2.5, and Teredo in the default policy only very recently.

Because Teredo is not mentioned in RFC3484, I expect many other RFC3484 
implementations do have the same issue. Unfortunately, even if they don't 
have Teredo support themselves, they should still recognize the prefix for 
source address selection...
I did write an I-D to allocate one new prefix, but then I realized that the 
revised RFC3484 draft work already mentioned it, so I did not bother 
submitting it.

In your particular case, did you try to add

label		2001:0::/32	7
precedence 	2001:0::/32	5

to /etc/gai.conf ?

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:17:45 +0200

> bad response times to www.ietf.org when using teredo.

It would help if vendors implemented the RFC 3484 policy table so  
administrators can override this. (AFAIK, only (Free)BSD and Windows  
support this.)

> reproduce the problem and who would be willing to work with NSS to

I'm not currently in the position to test Teredo, but I suspect there  
is more going on. For instance, I can't reach the IETF or ARIN using  
2001:1af8:2:5::2. The problem seems to be with OCCAID, which provides  
IPv6 connectivity to both.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 00:08:45 +0900 (JST)

> Le Monday 01 October 2007 20:50:00 ext Sam Hartman, vous avez écrit:

	this really shows that the approaches with policy table is very against
	of KISS principle...

itojun

---

From: Arifumi Matsumoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:30:26 +0900

> revised RFC3484 draft work already mentioned it, so I did not bother 

Do you mean this I-D ?
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-arifumi-ipv6-rfc3484-revise-00.txt

This one includes mainly minor changes to RFC 3484.
I tried to talk about this I-D at Prague, but I couldn't have time
there. Though this I-D is expired now, I want to put this on the
table again.

Do you have any comments about this I-D ?
Now that we have 6man wg, is it a good idea to move from intarea to 6man ?

Thanks.

-- 
Arifumi Matsumoto
    IP Technology Expert Team
    Secure Communication Project
    NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories
    E-mail: [email-masked]

________________________1:42 2007
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:30:26 +0900
From: Arifumi Matsumoto <[email-masked]>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgRGVuaXMtQ291cm1vbnQ=? <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Would someone help the secretariat figure out why they cannot
 route to teredo addresses?

> revised RFC3484 draft work already mentioned it, so I did not bother 

Do you mean this I-D ?
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-arifumi-ipv6-rfc3484-revise-00.txt

This one includes mainly minor changes to RFC 3484.
I tried to talk about this I-D at Prague, but I couldn't have time
there. Though this I-D is expired now, I want to put this on the
table again.

Do you have any comments about this I-D ?
Now that we have 6man wg, is it a good idea to move from intarea to 6man ?

Thanks.

-- 
Arifumi Matsumoto
    IP Technology Expert Team
    Secure Communication Project
    NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories
    E-mail: [email-masked]

_______________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]