RE: ocean: do not boil

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Jim Bound wrote:
> ...
> If the provider service is dominant IPv6 usage then the only 
> reason to use Ipv4 are for services that have not been 
> migrated to IPv6.  This is where DSTM brings its value.
> 
> It permits a network operator to:
> 
> 1: conserve and manage its precious IPv4 global address space
> 2: control the use of IPv4 global address space per usage/service
> 3: identify a migration of services and apps that must move to IPv6
> 4: avoid the use of any NAT paradigm at the GGSN
> 5. Use e2e security (e.g. IPsec) inherent on the handheld.
> 6. Use IPv6 as the dominant routing protocol.
> 
> The above cannot be done with NAT-PT.  In addition
> DSTM as a solution can be used only when needed and
> does not require the routing complexity (except coming back 
> into the GGSN) that 6to4 does.  But a variation of DSTM is 
> also proposed that will use 6to4 if it is part of the DSTM.
> 
> DSTM not only is useful for 3G but 802.11 LANs, LMMs,
> and WANs which I  see being deployed much faster and 
> in fact currently and I see NO 3G deployment at this time.
> So I am testing this with 802.11 as  a note and with handheld 
> devices.  
> 

Rod was correct, in the sense that for a basic 3G network a demand IPv4
PDP context provides the same functionality that DSTM provides to a
routed IPv6 network. The point I think you are trying to make is that
DSTM also works in wireless hot-spot networks, and for an operator that
is interested in a unified mechanism for handsets that roam between the
802.11 & 3G radios, DSTM may be the best approach. If they really are
locked into the point-to-point association between the GGSN & the
handset, they could use L2TP as a companion mechanism when the radio
drops the IPv4 PDP context. 

Tony