Re: is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?
Hello,
Ivan Shmakov a écrit :
> Do I understand it correctly, that the 6to4 and Teredo tunneling
> transition mechanisms work by establishing ``implicit'' tunnels,
Yes, you can say that.
> and, thus, are subject to the already existing IPv4 routing,
The tunneling packets are.
> while 6in4 routes the packets via the chosen IPv6 provider?
6in4 is just the encapsulation method (protocol 41) used by 6to4, and
one of the encapsulation methods used by some IPv6 tunnel brokers (which
are what you call "IPv6 providers" I guess).
> Thus, it seems sensible for a single host to always implement
> Teredo or 6to4, even if as an addition to 6in4, in order to
> utilize the existing IPv4 routing. (Consider, e. g., two
> friends with hosts connected to the network of some IPv4
> provider; the use of 6in4 implies that the traffic will be
> routed via yet another, possibly distant, IPv6, provider, while
> with either Teredo or 6to4, the packets will be routed directly
> via the IPv4 provider's network, resulting in lower latency,
> bandwidth consumption, etc.)
IPv4 routing between two hosts may not be straightforward either.
> May it therefore make sense for all the IPv6-compatible network
> software to support source IPv6 binding?
Not more than for a classic multihomed IPv4 host, IMO.
Reply to: