Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

"Hesham Soliman (EAB)" wrote:
...
> Let me give you an example, if 
> 6to4 was written now, it would have suffered the same 
> destiny as ISATAP or BGP-based tunnelling. But because
> it was written a long time ago, it is actually an
> RFC. I'm not sure that 6to4 is a better solution
> for inter-domain tunnelling than BGP-based tunnels.

I think the historical fact is that the BGP-based tunneling
proposal emerged later than 6to4 *because* 6to4 talks quite a
bit about using BGP to make 6to4 work properly in an IDR
context. And of course BGP will work with other methods of
prefix assignment too.

If it isn't in the v6ops charter, just develop it as an
individual submission to the routing area.

   Brian