Teredo Server Selection
draft-nward-v6ops-teredo-server-selection-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Nathan Ward | ||
| Last updated | 2007-07-03 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document describes performance, reliability and privacy problems inherent when using a remotely situated vendor-provided Teredo server, which is a common default in current implementations, and then discussed why configuring servers manually is bad and difficult. It recommends two partial solutions, and gives a final recommendation combining both solutions using anycast IPv4 and a well known DNS hostname.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)