6to4 status (again)

Ignatios Souvatzis ignatios at cs.uni-bonn.de
Thu Feb 28 14:34:35 CET 2013


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:45:44AM +0000, Mike Jones wrote:

> However uPnP isn't needed for teredo either if I understand it
> correctly? The specs say something about NAT traversal, and the way it
> uses UDP should pass unaltered through many of the normal residential
> NAT rules* i'm familiar with.

Yes. For most types of NAT port allocation strategies out in the wild,
it is supposed to work. It's a damned ingenious implementatation for a
stupid idea (of not deploying native IPv6).

> I don't have any experience to confirm this though. 

I've tried it in German high-speed trains (ICE) over the two-level-NAT
(at least traceroutes look that way) they offer. Worked fine, more or
less, only the packet loss makes it a bit clumsy.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list