[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: transition architecture discussion

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 17:22:19 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:

> .. it is by far not perfect (I didn't have any time to work on it except
> the last night), and includes personal opinions (of course :-), but could
> be usable as something concrete to build discussion on, if needed.

Thanks for starting this discussion.

I think we also need to finish the scenario drafts soon (hint, hint).

It would also be useful to find out why people are not deploying/
using/requesting IPv6.

A few comments.

You restrict the architecture discussion to the "process of enabling
the use of IPv6". I don't think that's enough. I think it should
include at least the phase of a predominantly IPv6 internet. Running
dual stack is not without any costs. It is easier and cheaper to run
either v4-only or v6-only. If we don't _plan_ for a situation where
almost all traffic is v6 it won't happen.

You mention the problems of enabling IPv6 for services and bad IPv6
connectivity. That's true. I fully agree. But on the other hand
routing approved a lot when people started to use IPv6 on a daily
basis. This is just an operational issue. IPv4 networks can be
operated badly too.

Therefore, I think we should not use separate domain names (like
ipv6.example.com) or prefer A over AAAA. We (operators, not the
IETF) should put effort in v6 connectivity with the same quality
as v4.

With respect to tunneling, I think there are a couple of questions:
- Should we work on v6-in-v4 tunneling through v4 NATs (e.g. teredo)?
	I can see its use in 3GPP, where the end user does not
	have influence on the GGSN. I am not sure about home routers.
	End users have the choice to buy an IPv6 enabled home router.
- Do we have a clear tunnel architecture?
	I don't think so. We have 6to4 and configured tunnels. Is
	6to4 also for single end user systems? Do we agree on the
	security issues of 6to4? Are tunnel brokers enough? Do we
	need tsp?

Do we need to work on translation (NAT-PT, SIIT, etc)? I am not sure.
At least we should discourage it because in many cases there are
better alternatives.

	rvdp