Subject: RE: automatic tunneling and v6 interoperation

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:12:10 -0000

On the side of this discussion (: sorry for the bother :) Here's (yet
another) alternate possibility to enable IPv6 to traverse IPv4 PAT/NAT.
It applies to IPv6 Mobile Nodes and Mobile Routers only, but if you have
MIPv6 available, the rest of the way is pretty simple. I proposed it to
Nemo and the suggestion I received was actually to post it to v6Ops. So
here it is... Can you please consider:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-nemo-ipv4-traversal-01
.txt

Thanks :)

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: jeudi 13 novembre 2003 20:32
> To: Christian Huitema
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: automatic tunneling and v6 interoperation
> 
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > > Could you describe how the Teredo host finds this relay (close to
the
> > > native host)?  Note that I was not describing the traffic from the
> > native
> > > host to a Teredo host.
> >
> > This is actually documented in section 4.1.5 of the Teredo draft.
The
> > Teredo client sends an ICMP request to the IPv6 node, through the
Teredo
> > server. The native host receives the request over the native
interface,
> > and sends an ICMP reply. The ICMP reply is routed to the nearest
Teredo
> > relay over native IPv6. (Not routed very far if the gateway is on
the
> > host, but that is not necessary.) The Teredo client receives the
reply
> > from the relay, and associates the native IPv6 address to the IPv4 &
UDP
> > port of the relay. Further packets to that address are sent directly
to
> > this relay.
> 
> Ok, thanks -- missed that.
> 
> Who has the incentive of deploying Teredo servers then?  Assume there
will
> be 10,000,000 hosts implementing Teredo, and assuming that the users
surf
> the web, use the services, etc. and e.g. 1/10 of the traffic is going
> towards native destinations (could be a lot more as well).  Even if
this
> would result in one new site in a minute, wouldn't there still be
dozens
> or even hundreds of thousands ICMP packets passing through Teredo
servers,
> if they would not be distributed as well?  (The number of packets
would be
> quite high, and the associated state as well?)
> 
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:19:08 +0200 (EET)

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-nemo-ipv4-traversal-01

This has IPR application and Cisco is providing RAND terms.  My own
personal interest stopped just here -><-. (The same applies to Nemo basic
protocol as well, btw.)

Btw, Teredo has IPR application as well, the good thing is Microsoft is
offering RF terms for Standards Track implementations.  That may be a
problem has well, but not as severe one as RAND.