RE: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

> 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?

Yes.  We want many options for transition this is investigation and we
do investigation. We are not done yet.

> 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 ??

Nothing forces vendors other than the market.  And all users I know do
not only want the two you list.  So we disagree on that base assumption
of the market and users.

/jim
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>