RE: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT

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

Jim,

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:

> we either discuss it here or we go make it standard out of the ietf.  I
> think its in the v6ops and ietf interest to keep discussing and see
> where this goes.
>
> do you have any technical comment on the spec?
>
as the spec stands, I cannot comment, simply because for me it does not
make sense... I am waiting for the version that
Jordi says is almost ready and yes, I will comment that one.

Rute
> /jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rute C. Sofia [mailto:rsofia@seas.upenn.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:45 AM
> > To: Tim Chown
> > Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>