Subject: RE: (ngtrans) shipworm discussion and last call

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:52:47 -0700

> > Shipworm is designed to robustly enable IPv6 traffic through NAT, 
> > and the price of robustness is a reasonable amount of overhead, due 
> > to UDP encapsulation, transmission of bubbles, and relaying of 
> > packets through the Shipworm servers. Nodes that want to connect to 
> > the IPv6 Internet should only use the Shipworm service as a "last 
> > resort" option: they should prefer using direct IPv6 
> connectivity if 
> > it is locally available, and they should prefer using the less 
> > onerous "6to4" encapsulation if they can use a global IPv4 address.
> 
> Actually the condition is a bit more subtle than the last sentence
> indicates. I suggest
> 
>                      ...if they can use a a global IPv4 address,
>  either because there is no NAT in place, or because the NAT is
>  co-located with a 6to4 router.
> 
> [otherwise people might deduce that NAT requires Shipworm, which it
> doesn't if the NAT box also handles 6to4]

Brian,

I thought I covered that by mentioning "direct IPv6 connectivity." If
the NAT is colocated with an IPv6 router, then it will behave as an IPv6
router and provide IPv6 connectivity to the local nodes. From the node
point of view, there should be no difference between access through a
6to4 router, access through a router implementing a 6Bone tunnel, or
access through a router implementing "native" IPv6. 

OTOH, if you really want a clarification, I can certainly do that.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:09:18 -0500

below...

> OTOH, if you really want a clarification, I can certainly do that.

There is certainly nothing wrong with your text - but I think the
clarification is useful, because there are so many possible scenarios.

   Brian