Re: ocean: do not boil

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

p2p applications can be designed to use intermediaries,
just like SMTP and HTTP. If I was designing an apps 
protocol today, I would definitely make sure it could
be relayed between address spaces at applications level.

   Brian

"Hesham Soliman (EAB)" wrote:
> 
> I should clarify that my comment was
> in the context of new applications (other than
> HTTP and email, i.e. p2p).
> 
> Hesham
> 
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Hesham Soliman (EAB) [mailto:hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se]
>   > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:43 PM
>   > To: 'Bob Hinden'; Margaret Wasserman
>   > Cc: Randy Bush; Bob Fink; Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino;
>   > v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>   > Subject: RE: ocean: do not boil
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   > >>i don't think we should try to solve the problem of
>   > an arbitrary
>   >   > >>user/service on a pure v6 site/host trying to
>   > communicate with a
>   >   > >>user/service on a pure v4 site/host or vice versa.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >I agree with this.
>   >   >
>   >   > I don't agree with one case of this.  I think there is a
>   >   > need to have IPv6
>   >   > only hosts that are able to reach the same IPv4 services
>   >   > that an IPv4 host
>   >   > behind a NAT today can reach.  This will make IPv6 only
>   >   > hosts much more
>   >   > attractive than if they can only reach IPv6 services.  This
>   >   > will make IPv6
>   >   > only a real possibility for new deployments of new types of
>   >   > devices.  If we
>   >   > don't support this case, then these devices (and resulting
>   >   > infrastructure)
>   >   > will have to be dual stack.
>   >
>   > => I completely agree with Bob. I don't understand how we
>   > can rule out the v6only => v4 only communication.
>   > What do we say to operators who can't get enough
>   > v4 addreses? Deploy a v4 NAT as well as IPv6?
>   >
>   > I can understand that communication between a v4only
>   > host initiating a connection with a v6 only host
>   > is too difficult and probably should not be a priority.
>   >
>   > Hesham