List of Teredo servers and teredo relays

Owen DeLong owen at
Sat Sep 11 22:27:04 UTC 2010

On Sep 11, 2010, at 3:18 PM, khatfield at wrote:

> Thanks for the explanation.
> And Owen: thanks, I just thought most networks/facilities (colo/private) should be close to ipv6 now days. At least capable, maybe not configured.
Would that it were so. The ones I work on all are.

> I think I was just making an assumption so thanks for the info.

Any time.

Life will get more interesting in February.
Life will get very interesting somewhere around August of next year.


> ------Original Message------
> From: Jeff Kell
> To: Kevin Hatfield
> Subject: Re: List of Teredo servers and teredo relays
> Sent: Sep 11, 2010 3:22 PM
> On 9/11/2010 3:29 PM, khatfield at wrote:
>> I may be missing the point here completely but to me Teredo just seems like a glorified hack/workaround for a bigger problem. Isn't is better (yes less cost-effective) to just upgrade equipment?
>> I really don't see the advantage here. Maybe someone can explain away my ignorance to the concept?
> Teredo is a "last-ditch"  solution, but unfortunately in the Microsoft
> world, and acceptable and preferable solution over IPv4.
> Pure speculation, but the IPv6 efforts of many (looking at current
> MacOS, Windows, and a growing segment of PDAs/phones) are making
> tremendous effort to obtain "some" form of IPv6 connectivity.  This
> makes sense if there were (a) only IPv6 connectivity at the client
> endpoint, or (b) only IPv6 connectivity at the service endpoint.  That
> would insure things would work if either case were true.
> What is currently "breaking" things is the preference of IPv6 over
> IPv4.  If you're running a default Win2K8 active directory, it's
> publishing all of it's goodies for login in IPv6 form complete with AAAA
> address records.  If your network isn't end-to-end IPv6 compliant, but
> some Win7 client across the hall (on another subnet) has found *any*
> IPv6 connectivity (6to4, Teredo, doesn't matter how good/bad/ugly/slow),
> it is going to try to communicate with the domain controller over that
> IPv6 connection.  I have seen this in action, and stacks of trouble
> tickets of slow / intermittent / no connectivity with the domain.
> As it currently stands, if you're not 100% end-to-end IPv6 ready with
> compliant transport, these "preferences" break or cripple things.
> Of course, this all may be by IPv6 design (make it so horribly painful
> not to accomodate to push you to provide better alternatives) :-)
> Jeff

More information about the NANOG mailing list