I need Miredo for F10

[Robert Moskowitz]

Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> Robert Moskowitz <rgm at htt-consult.com> 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.