Re: IPv6 Home Use to stimulate deployment over IPv4-NAT

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Alain Durand wrote:
[...]
> A DHCPv4 extension would work, somethink like marc blanchet's TSP
> protocol would work also. Maybe the first think to do is to work on some
> requirements for such a protocol.

Indeed, we have to get a better picture on what are the problems and 
non-problems.

For example, DHCP extension works only in scenarios where you obtain the
tunnel connectivity from your direct upstream ISP, the same one that
provides IPv4 connectivity.  

In many cases, this is a non-problem: it is often the case that such
IPv6-active ISP's could provide v6 access using different means already --
no all though -- if the IPv6-conscious ISP just has to keep natting
routers as CPE's and can't change them in the short term, this could still
be valuable.

So, we need to have a picture on the scenarios we're trying to address.

> > At 12:59 PM 2/21/2003 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> >
> >> I caught that in the rfc too.  Yes we need an updated tunnel rfc or
> >> draft.
> >> Would that be valid work here ?  Chairs ?
> >
> >
> > I'm not quite sure what you are asking...  Are you asking
> > about an update to RFC 3053 that would explain how to use
> > it over a NAT?
> >
> > If the need for something like this is indicated by the
> > unmanaged or enterprise scenario/analysis efforts, we
> > would probably want to pursue this in v6ops (I can't
> > think of another WG that would be more appropriate).
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings