Subject: RE: Teredo vs Silkroad

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:58:01 -0700

From an analysis of the drafts, it appears that silkroad is closer to
tunnel brokers than to Teredo. Silkroad relies on the deployment of a
large number of relays and servers, that become part of the ISP
infrastructure: this is very similar to the deployment of tunnel servers
by the ISP. It provides pretty much the same advantages as tunnel
brokers, i.e. stable addresses and robust tunneling across different
types of infrastructure.

The part of Silkroad that somewhat resemble Teredo is the routing
optimization between the tunnel servers (called SAR in silkroad). I
don't think that this is particularly valuable: once you have reached an
ISP router, you would expect normal routing protocols to take over and
route packets along the optimal path. In fact, this feature will be
perceived as detrimental by many ISP, since it makes their network
management more complex than necessary. 

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Liu Min" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:45:22 +0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of Christian Huitema
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 11:58 PM
> To: Eiffel Wu; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Teredo vs Silkroad
> 

There is no relay in Silkroad. 

Is Teredo the mechanism to be used by the ISP to provide v6 to his
customers, or is it meant to be used by those users whose ISP/3GPP
operator does not support v6 (or these mechanisms) at all?

---

From: "Liu Min" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:45:23 +0800

Behalf
> brokers, i.e. stable addresses and robust tunneling across different

Why do you think Silkroad need more relays and servers than Teredo?