Re: Discussion regarding IP proto41 in NAT

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

That's the ISP scenarios document, not unmanaged :)

Tim

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:45:08PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Marcin Michalak wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >  Forgive me if this is already done: It seems to me that we need to
> > have clear recommendations with priorities what solutions are to be
> > used. Something like Margaret was saying: native IPv6, then ...
> >
> >  What also I see that many things are becoming obvious for us, but
> > may not be so obvious for the others. So in my opinion it should be
> > clearly stated in all transition documents that native IPv6 is the
> > best and recommended solution.
> >  Have a good time in Vienna (or somewhere else :-)),
> >   Marcin
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Marcin Michalak		Research Engineer
> > Mobile: +41 79 330 83 51	Telscom AG
> 
> 
> I also strongly second this view.
> This discussion is about easying SOHO and HOME deployment, but it seems to
> me that the quality involved with using this mechanism might turn users
> against IPv6 usage.
> The focus should be to:
> a) ISPs requesting addresses
> b) getting the BGP sessions up and running
> c) ISPs going dual-stack on their backbone
> d) ISPs extending native IPv6 to their customers "door" (SOHO *and* HOME)
> 
> 
> Again -- you All -- have a good time in Vienna.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> ./Carlos                                                "Networking is fun!"
> --------------         [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt]           http://www.fccn.pt
> <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup
> F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167
>                 [ See me @ h323:videoconf05.fccn.pt]
>   "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!"
>