6to4 status (again)

Dmitry Anipko Dmitry.Anipko at microsoft.com
Wed Feb 27 23:19:01 CET 2013

>> Yes, it's possible from Teredo side. But why 6to4 which can't be behind a NAT?

I think BitTorrent folks, if they are on the alias, or anyone more closely familiar with their code would be able to comment better on the address selection logic they follow.

>> Internet Explorer only?

IE certainly, but not only IE. For example, all/most of the apps in Windows store would use the APIs relying on OS preferences, many W7 desktop apps would do so as well. I can't speak for other browsers, which may have their own way of selecting addresses.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-ops-bounces+dmitry.anipko=microsoft.com at lists.cluenet.de [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+dmitry.anipko=microsoft.com at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:08 PM
To: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
Subject: Re: 6to4 status (again)

On 27.02.13 23:57, Dmitry Anipko wrote:
>>> I see a lot of BitTorrent traffic from Win7/WinXP preferring 6to4<->teredo.
> My understanding is that some peer to peer apps are explicitly using Teredo, because it gives them some amount of NAT traversal "for free".

Yes, it's possible from Teredo side. But why 6to4 which can't be behind a NAT?

>>> What exactly Win7/Win8 software prefer v4<->v4?
> Chris's statement about preference is correct for apps which do not explicitly specify, what interface/address they want to use - e.g. user doing web browsing and the browser using mainstream Windows networking APIs to make a connection.

  - i.e. Internet Explorer only?

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list