Re: is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?

To: "Bill Cerveny" <debian-v6@21st-century-networks.com>
Cc: "Pascal Hambourg" <pascal.mail@plouf.fr.eu.org>, debian-ipv6@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:50:33 +0200
Message-id: <87ocq48xw6.fsf@trurl.pps.jussieu.fr>
In-reply-to: <1250827514.16999.1330894745@webmail.messagingengine.com> (Bill Cerveny's message of "Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:05:14 -0400")
References: <87my5vp073.fsf@violet.siamics.int> <4A8D269E.30809@plouf.fr.eu.org> <1250827514.16999.1330894745@webmail.messagingengine.com>

> I'm less familiar with Teredo,

Teredo has a mechanism for optimising traffic to double-stack hosts.
You can set up a ``host-specific relay'', essentially an unnumbered
Teredo interface.  Traffic to Teredo hosts will be routed as Teredo
packets (UDPv4), with no need to have a local Teredo address.

With miredo, just say

  RelayType cone
  
in your /etc/miredo.conf.  If you're behind a NAT, you may need to say

  RelayType restricted

instead.

                                        Juliusz

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?
  - From: Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>

References:
- is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?
  - From: Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>
- Re: is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?
  - From: Pascal Hambourg <pascal.mail@plouf.fr.eu.org>
- Re: is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?
  - From: "Bill Cerveny" <debian-v6@21st-century-networks.com>

Prev by Date: Re: current state of IPv6 support in Debian
Next by Date: Re: current state of IPv6 support in Debian
Previous by thread: Re: is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?
Next by thread: Re: is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread