Re: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT

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

There are two uses for the document:

1.  To alert people to the (to some obvious) protocol41 "trick" to carry an
    IPv6 tunnel into a NAT network.   This is very handy for early adoptors
    (the IPv6 geeks).    It is not a long-term solution.

2.  To alert NAT vendors to the fact that if they make what should be a
    simple mod to their formware - *if* they are not already supporting IPv6
    in some other way e.g. 6to4 or better - they can enable their geek
    customers to use IPv6 at home.

I think it's a useful informational document, so long as the "trick" is
just seen as an early adoptor/last resort mechanism.

It is a mechanism we use a lot btw.

tim

On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:41:41AM -0400, Rute C. Sofia wrote:
> Jordi,
> 
> 
> > This is exactly what I already reflected in the new version of the draft.
> >
> > I will wait for more inputs before publish it.
> 
> 
> I understand the point of your document, but really do not see a place for
> it... It's not so much a question of the "mechanism" (it is here; it is
> used
> sometimes), but really, a question of the purpose of the document.
> There has to be a clear purpose (and maybe I'm missing it), otherwise,
> we just end up adding more entropy...Can you please answer clearly the
> following questions:
> 
> 1) does the document introduce a *significant* contribution to current
> deployment status?
> 2) if something should be forced to vendors, that should be either ipv6 or
> 6to4 ;-). Why impose a third option, given that only a subset of scenarios
> will *possibly* gain with it ??
> 
> And, a bit out of scope in technical terms...out of curiosity, if you
> already have an "updated" version of the draft (updated in which sense??),
> why didn't you present it yesterday?
> 
> thanks,
> rute
>