On 30/05/2007, at 11:41 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before someone starts it, the debate between transition
protocols to use is well and truely over. Teredo and 6to4
have been chosen for use by the software vendors of the end
systems. (fine by me)
This is misleading. You are using IPv6 jargon (transition protocol)
whose meaning is not obvious. For most ISPs, "transition" refers to
the
entire series of steps up to running a ubiquitous IPv6 network where
IPv4 is a legacy support service. In that sense, Teredo and 6to4
are not
magic bullets because they merely deal with the first steps of such a
transition.
Fair enough. Alternative suggestions? :-)
I do agree that Teredo and 6to4 are very important right now, as
far as
taking actions, but for planning, we need to look well beyond IPv6
transition protocols.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Since we are all collectively playing catchup at this point, it
would be
very useful for some clear guidance on who needs to deploy Teredo and
6to4 and where it needs to be deployed. Also, the benefits of
deployment
versus the problems caused by not having it. Should this be in
every PoP
or just somewhere on your network? Are there things that can be
measured
to tell you whether or not lack of Teredo/6to4 is causing user
problems?
A quick look through the NANOG historical slideware suggests very
little mention of Teredo. Again, someone from Microsoft who can fill
that gap might be useful. And probably someone who's using Miredo (an
opensource/free implementation).
I've been doing a lot of thinking/writing about deploying these
things in the real world so I can knock up some pictures+notes, but
again, better to hear from someone else who's done/doing it, rather
than someone who's been playing/thinking. I assume there is someone..
--
Nathan Ward