Re: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT

["Rute C. Sofia" <rsofia@seas.upenn.edu>]

Tim,

>
> 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.

I completely agree with the sentence above, and that was stated in my
previous mail.

But, Point 2. above says it all: "*if* they are not already supporting
IPv6 in some other way e.g. 6to4 or better..."...

Given that the solution that it's trying to be "imposed" is a temporary
solution, not compatible with the other possible ones, I do not see a
point in creating a document about it. I do understand that it's in use
;-P, but an individual draft about this does not seem really useful, in
my viewpoint. Much less a WG document on this...
Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but again, what I'm
transmitting is that I don't
see the need to document a temporary solution, simply arguing with the
purpose that vendors should give this third option...which is already in
use...there is so much work to be done regarding v6ops, that my fear is
that this document just ends up in simply adding entropy...

Rute