Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
Robert Moskowitz <rgm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
And if you are on a v4 network and need v6 connectivity? That is
Miredo's roll. It is a transition mechinism. Lots of discussions about
it at the IETF meeting last month in the IPv6OPS workgroup.
I think I'm beginning to see the issue. If you are subjected to a
misbehaving NAT box not under your control, you might need to tunnel
ipv6 over UDP.
And if you are roaming, you WILL be in this situation.
I've always been lucky and had access to at least one clean, globally
routable IP address, so the normal protocol-41 ipv6 inside ipv4
tunneling just worked. In case it helps, here are my notes for
setting up static tunnels under fedora.
http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/fedora/ipv6-tunnel.html
I will look into this. Actually, I have a /48 allocation to my home lab
(and 64 v4 addresses as well).
Actually, I am working on a project that is using HIP
(infrahip.hiit.fi) over IPv6 (with Miredo where needed), doing secure
mobility and NAT traversal (Miredo over ICE). SIP and P2PSIP are my
apps for this.
Sounds like a noble goal. I've always been hoping that direct
peer-to-peer VOIP calls would become more common.
P2PSIP, like skype is burdened with a complex overlay model. Then
through mobility into the mix and things get REALLY HARD.
I designed HIP to address some of the fundimental deficiencies in our IP
model. It does security and mobility in a sane manner. It has been 10
years in coming, but there is now code and a few deployments.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
