Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    > Basic Tunnels
>    > 6to4
>    
>    Sure.
>    
> => I am not convinced by 6to4. For instance by the 6to4-relay concept.

6to4 relays cause some rather interesting problems, especially relating to 
quality of service (too few of them at the moment, leading to huge 
delays connecting to 6to4 nodes from some areas).

>    > DSTM
>    
>    I'm not yet convinced of this.  Especially I have huge doubts about 
>    temporary address management scalability and robustness.
>    
> => this address management is exactly the current DHCPv4 address management
> (I agree this is not a real answer :-).

No it *definitely* isn't, or I've misunderstood the intent.  What has been
proposed is something like 'when application requests and address, get it
from somewhere, after application exists, return it'.  That's very far
from DHCPv4.  Add the ports option to the stew and you have a mess..

Running DHCPv4 over DSTM (with reasonable address lifetimes etc.) would
sound much better than currently proposed.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords