Hello,

Le Lundi 29 Mai 2006 13:23, Arifumi Matsumoto a écrit :
>   - Teredo is defined. (RFC4380)
>     Teredo should have less priority than 6to4 and IPv4
>     considering its communication overhead and reliability ?
>     Also, this value below conforms to Windows.

I pretty much agree that Teredo should have a lower priority than public 
IPv4 space, but it is not so obvious with regards to private or 
link-local IPv4 addresses... in the client to server case were NAT are 
a non-issue, using IPv4 is better anyway, but in other cases (e.g. SIP 
calls, p2p...), it will probably be worse.

>   - ULA should have less precedence than IPv4.
>     As brought up by Pekka Savola, ULA is a possible cause
>     of connection failure. It gets worse, as IPv6 deployment
>     proceeds and more FQDNs have both A and AAAA records.

>     As a few people already pointed out, I guess it's not
>     so easy to solve the Pekka's ULA and IPv4 trouble other
>     than to change policy table. While the problems caused
>     by prioritizing ULA lower than IPv4 seem to be relatively
>     easily solved. For example, by removing A record, using
>     DNS zone-split, like that.

As with Teredo, it should at least be safe to underprioritize ULAs 
against public IPv4 space, but if I understand correctly, that implies 
adding 4 extra IPv4 rules (3 for RFC1918, and one for 169.154/16). And, 
yeah, I can't think of any safe choice in between private IPv4 and 
ULAs.

>   It's better if you can control on/off of temporary address.
>   It's much better if you can control which address to use
>   for which service. IMHO, Policy Table is the best place
>   to implement this additional function.

Similarly, it might (?) be nice to have a (IPv4) NAT-friendly 
application profile and a NAT-unfriendly one, though they might be 
caveats that I've not thought of.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to