Re: is source address binding more valuable for IPv6?

[Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>]

>>>>> "JC" == Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr> writes:

 BC> I'm less familiar with Teredo,

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

 JC> With miredo, just say

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

 JC> RelayType restricted

	BTW, miredo.conf(5) discourages the use of such a mode:

--cut: miredo.conf(5) --
        restricted mode
            This mode is identical to the cone mode documented above,
            with the exception that direct Teredo bubbles will be sent.
            Theoretically (see RFC4380) this permits operation of a
            Teredo relay from behind a restricted-port NAT.  In
            practice, this makes NAT traversal extremely unreliable.
            This setting is present for backward syntax compatibility of
            the miredo.conf file.  PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS MODE.
--cut: miredo.conf(5) --

 JC> instead.

	However, when the traffic has to pass from one host to another
	behind the very same NAT, the traffic is going to be routed via
	that NAT.  Unfortunately, there apparently are some NATs which
	don't allow such a trick.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257