Re: [Hipsec] Teredo compatibility

Hi,

as Andrew indicates, the whole point of ICE is that it sends probes to 
see what works and what does not. We should not go off and specify stuff 
that will be discovered anyway at run time.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Andrew McGregor wrote:
> Ok, but in any case, candidate address probing deals with those issues.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> On 12/12/2009, at 1:02 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
> 
>> Andrew McGregor wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it should be short section then, right?)
>>
>> I basically agree with you. Based on our experimentation, it works but there are some caveats regarding to pairing of addressing. So, sending of packets from src->dst:
>>
>> Teredo->Teredo: works
>> Teredo->IPv6: does not work without a (commercial) relay service
>> IPv6->Teredo: works
>> IPv6->IPv6: (works :)
>>
>> Samu, please comment if I got the two middle ones in wrong order.
>>
>> Also, at least the miredo implementation on linux is good, but not perfect. Some performance-related issues and sometimes HIP packets just don't go through (usually restarting of miredo works).
>>
>>> Why?  It just works, if Teredo is available it's just another IPv6 address.
>>> Andrew
>>> On 12/12/2009, at 12:49 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> we've done some concrete work on NAT traversal with ICE, but what about Teredo? I think RFC5201 and RFC5206 should have some statements about Teredo-based addresses?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
> 