Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-vanrein-v6ops-6bed4-00.txt

[Jeroen Massar <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-07-28 11:04 , Rick van Rein wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>> A variant of Teredo that can use a provider-specific prefix and a
>>> unicast IPv4 address would surely do for the embedded systems market.
>>> But we haven't found enough interest in the IETF for that approach.
>>
>> For those there is already TSP, which is already an RFC, AYIYA which I
>> might be redoing the draft for in a few weeks.
> 
> TSP has a number of problems:
> 
> * There is no open source server-side implementation;

That is really the problem of the person who wants to build it. There
are multiple implementations in use.

> I started one, but moved over to 6bed4 because of the following shortcomings.
> 
> * Existing client implementations do not work according to the RFCs.
>
> * Correcting those clients demonstrated that the available servers
>   won't accept RFC-compliant traffic.

Maybe you should contact the programmers of the client and the operators
of the service about this? There must be a reason why they are different.

IPv6.org.sa / CITC apparently did their own implementation[1] of the
server side based on the RFCs and the standard gogo6 client works for
them... so are you sure you did not do something wrong?

They also state in those slides that they might open source the thing.

Greets,
 Jeroen

[1] Google docs/cache URL as their website is unreachable for me
a google(www.ipv6.org.sa) pops it up

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:iSgSvLpRDk8J:www.ipv6.org.sa/sites/default/files/CITC%2520IPv6%2520Tunnel%2520Broker%2520-%2520CITC.pdf+%22www.ipv6.org.sa%22&hl=en&gl=ch&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShkmEVwfkVJPXHgGkNjb1EavvadxA7C6RmkqCSm95ovr5oK-Cdyql6i0WsOOk024dJhFJSgWhVJ8kraB8WGpRdeffavGCKtHJ9BppZm9ajmHA_4x6PfSW8hOd7N-TIuc_mjPZkv&sig=AHIEtbTllhdinArwegu8bKsd1F2iAwJr0w