Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00

Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com> Wed, 29 September 2010 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <townsley@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2EE3A6E9B for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4wyv+RoEkfEo for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046E63A6EB8 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar4EABeuokyQ/khNgWdsb2JhbACiGxUBARYiIqoHnHWFRASKOg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,252,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="65423710"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Sep 2010 10:14:00 +0000
Received: from iwan-view2.cisco.com (iwan-view2.cisco.com [171.70.65.8]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8TADxmU020986; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:13:59 GMT
Received: from Saturn.local (ams-townsley-8717.cisco.com [10.55.233.232]) by iwan-view2.cisco.com (8.11.2/CISCO.WS.1.2) with ESMTP id o8TADvH26741; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4CA31167.4000508@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:13:59 +0200
From: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WashamFan <Washam.Fan@huaweisymantec.com>
References: <fc05cb5e259f.4ca0c0bb@huaweisymantec.com> <4CA0FBBA.3060606@gmail.com> <fbf6a71a442f.4ca1ba33@huaweisymantec.com> <E3659C1A-F894-4C8F-B952-B8BCF3E0C4AB@free.fr> <fc4aac941ff8.4ca33f5f@huaweisymantec.com> <4CA2F087.8010803@cisco.com> <fc99c6111f26.4ca36708@huaweisymantec.com>
In-Reply-To: <fc99c6111f26.4ca36708@huaweisymantec.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:15:24 -0000

On 9/29/10 10:19 AM, WashamFan wrote:
>>  I have one important question here: Are you looking for a solution that
>>  you can convince your provider to deploy and support, or something that
>>  you can setup independent of your provider? Given the situation, it
>>  sounds to me like more of the latter.
> 
> Tunnels start at one point and terminate at the other. Can
> you really setup IPv6 service independent of your provider?

Teredo does precisely that. But, it relies on relays that may or may not
work for you.

I'm not sure which is the best for where you are located in China, but
here's a list of services that will terminate the other end of the
Tunnel for you beyond your SP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_tunnel_brokers

6fei seems to be one in China, and uses TSP which is designed to
discover the presence of NATs and bore through them appropriately.

- Mark

> IPv6 service should always be delivered by your provider, but
> in the situation I described above, it seems to me it is hard
> for those providers delivering IPv6 service over existing
> complex IPv4 networks.
> 
> Thanks,
> washam
>