Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity

[Brzozowski, John Jason]

Chris can you share details of the brokenness check?  What variables are
considered?


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Christopher Palmer <
Christopher.Palmer at microsoft.com> wrote:

>  John and Lorenzo beat me to it J.****
>
> ** **
>
> Example:****
>
> Samantha has native IPv6 and Teredo.****
>
> Albert has Teredo only.****
>
> ** **
>
> Albert, in destination address selection, will chose Samantha’s Teredo
> address. Samantha, in source address selection, will use her Teredo
> address. This will avoid relay traversal.****
>
> ** **
>
> Xbox P2P policy is a bit more sophisticated than RFC 6724, but I note that
> the avoidance of Teredo relays is also part of Windows behavior. Windows
> address selection is a fairly clean implementation of RFC 6724. In RFC 6724
> terms, Teredo -> Teredo is a label match (Rule 5), Teredo -> Native IPv6 is
> not. The biggest difference between us and the standard is the brokenness
> check.****
>
> ****
>
> This does complicate the dream. In order for a set of peers to use native
> IPv6 – BOTH peers have to have native available. In the pathological case,
> if half of the world has IPv6 and connects only to the other half that only
> has Teredo, and no one actually uses native IPv6.****
>
> ** **
>
> Realistically, matchmaking is going to prefer users “close to you” (and a
> bunch of other things, like their gamer behavior and stuff). Naively I
> expect IPv6 traffic to start as local pockets, Albert playing against his
> neighbor, both with the same ISP. As IPv6 penetration grows hopefully we’ll
> see significant  P2P traffic across the Internet use native IPv6 transport.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ipv6-ops-bounces+christopher.palmer=microsoft.com at lists.cluenet.de[mailto:
> ipv6-ops-bounces+christopher.palmer=microsoft.com at lists.cluenet.de] *On
> Behalf Of *Lorenzo Colitti
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:26 PM
> *To:* Geoff Huston
> *Cc:* IPv6 Ops list; Christopher Palmer
>
> *Subject:* Re: Microsoft: Give Xbox One users IPv6 connectivity****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net> wrote:****
>
> But I've thought about your response, and if I'm allowed to dream (!), and
> in that dream where the efforts of COmcast, Google etc with IPv6 bear
> fruit, and I'm allowed to contemplate a world of, say, 33% IPv6 and 66% V4,
> then wouldn't we then see the remaining Teredo folk having 33% of their
> peer sessions head into Teredo relays to get to those 33% who are using
> unicast IPv6? And wouldn't that require these Teredo relays that we all
> know have been such a performance headache?****
>
>  ** **
>
> Can't you fix that by telling the app "if all you have is Teredo, prefer
> Teredo even if the peer has native IPv6 as well"?****
>
> ** **
>
> Of course this breaks down when IPv4 goes away, once IPv4 starts going
> away then there's really way to do peer-to-peer without relays, right?
> (Also, IPv4 going away is relatively far away at this point.)****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20131010/33b2fbe7/attachment.htm>