Subject: [v6ops] use of Teredo addresses in Apple devices

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:24:58 +0000

Great presentation on what Apple is doing to drive apps to implement IPv6.
In thinking about use of the Teredo address space to advertise a prefix to tethered devices, I do have a concern. In many of my personal home networked devices, I've purposefully disabled Teredo and ISATAP and even put in some rules to prevent the devices from accepting such addresses.

I think this would be a reasonable use of a ULA. A PI might be even better. I hear PIs are pretty easy to come by. The PI would have the advantage of being known to come from an Apple device for this NAT64 purpose. That could help with trouble shooting.
Barbara

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:30:06 +0200

I like the idea of dictionary-based addresses (abb1e apple).

And wonder whether ULAs are appropriate here.

(a PI would be better in a sense, but would not give an abb1e unless the 
registry provides them a PI with abb1e in it (?)).

Alex

Le 24/07/2015 10:24, STARK, BARBARA H a écrit :
> Great presentation on what Apple is doing to drive apps to implement
> IPv6. In thinking about use of the Teredo address space to advertise
> a prefix to tethered devices, I do have a concern. In many of my
> personal home networked devices, I've purposefully disabled Teredo
> and ISATAP and even put in some rules to prevent the devices from
> accepting such addresses.
>
> I think this would be a reasonable use of a ULA. A PI might be even
> better. I hear PIs are pretty easy to come by. The PI would have the
> advantage of being known to come from an Apple device for this NAT64
> purpose. That could help with trouble shooting. Barbara
>
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:32:05 +0200 (CEST)

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:

> I think this would be a reasonable use of a ULA.

I would not use ULA, since this is "special" in RFC6724. I would like to 
get something that ends up under the ::/0 label according to RFC6724.

> A PI might be even better. I hear PIs are pretty easy to come by. The PI 
> would have the advantage of being known to come from an Apple device for 
> this NAT64 purpose. That could help with trouble shooting.

Yes, I agree that PI would be optimal, but I am not opposed to using some 
other prefix such as the one Stuart suggested.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:37:24 +0200

I'm not sure that using ULAs is a good idea. ULAs are not likely to be
representative of real NAT64 deployments, which use global addresses.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:24 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <[email-masked]> wrote:

> In thinking about use of the Teredo address space to advertise a prefix to
> tethered devices, I do have a concern. In many of my personal home
> networked devices, I've purposefully disabled Teredo and ISATAP and even
> put in some rules to prevent the devices from accepting such addresses.
>
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:56:30 +0200

>  other prefix such as the one Stuart suggested.

=> these messages made me to look at the (nice) slides...
I agree with this position (PI or Stuart's) (aka +1).

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Edwin Cordeiro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:16:27 +0200

Even if the address is used only inside the telephone, I don't think using
the Teredo address is a good idea, as once it started being used in one
product it may be extended in other products of the company with unexpected
results.

If any of the addresses already reserved at IANA fits your need (
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml),
suggest a new one to be reserved.

In a previous discussion about extending the documentation reserved
addresses, one important comment was that no words should be used to give
additional meaning our proposed IPv6 reserved space, despite the temptation.

Edwin Cordeiro

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> In thinking about use of the Teredo address space to advertise a prefix
>> to tethered devices, I do have a concern. In many of my personal home