Hacker News Reader

Comment by shred45 | Hacker News Reader

This is really great, I remember the original post and had made a note to look into it myself but never got the chance.

In the third paragraph of the first section you mention the "Toledo" protocol out of the blue. Is this a result of autocorrect?

Thanks for writing this up!

View on HN

Terado, Toredo, Terredo, Tedero, Toledo, Tereo, Taredo... it gets misspelt a lot for some reason. (Yes, I've seen all of those in the wild.)

Not that there's any Teredo going on in the article...

Toledo is a large city in the midwestern region of the US, so it's likely that more people have heard of it than they have Teredo.

  > Not that there's any Teredo going on in the article...

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but note that using 6to4 with FOU produces packets that are exactly the Teredo protocol. This is why some packet analysis tools (for example Wireshark) are able to recognize the UDP-encapsulated packet as IPv6-in-UDP.

Teredo involves 2001:0::/32, Teredo servers and Teredo relays; connections over Teredo involve doing things like NAT traversal and asking the Teredo server to send a ping on your behalf to the target IP first. Teredo might use IPv6-in-UDP packets but that doesn't mean that every instance of IPv6-in-UDP is Teredo.

Since you're not using 2002::/16 it's not 6to4 either. It's 6rd, except tunnelling 6rd's 6in4 packets over UDP makes it incompatible with that. I was going to suggest "6rd-UDP" but https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-02 exists/existed and it's different, so maybe something else.

Not autocorrect, just neurons misfiring -- fixed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com