[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Opportunistic Tunneling
Hi all,
I believe proto-41 is also one of the proposals on the table for both unmanaged and 3GPP.
For example, TSP can make use of it. We also have a Tunnel Broker implementation that does.
Trying to answer to your questions, in my opinion, and I know other people with same or similar thoughts, this work for unmanaged, 3GPP and other scenarios is required.
When users start moving with IPv6 devices, we need to ensure that they are able to use it, despite what network they are sitting on.
I've this experience myself, traveling ... and I can solve it manually most of the time, but the users don't know how to. It should be automatic.
There are already applications that only work with IPv6, a few at the time being, but more coming, for sure. The reason is that you need addresses, for example to access multiple devices that are located behind a NAT box.
If those devices have IPv6, even with a tunnel, that's fine, it works. I can tell you as I know very well, I've my home connected like that :-)
In Euro6IX we are already working around this idea, but we don't have a draft ready for this meeting, unfortunately. Basically we call it "auto-transition". We need to ensure that the best possible transition mechanism work automatically at any time, in any network. At the same time we need to look were to deploy the 6to4, Teredo, or other relays (or equivalent), how to announce/select them even depending on their load, bandwidth, ..., for example using BGP, anycast, DNS, .... We also are studying the business case of that models (including deployment in IXs). If needed, I've a few slides about this.
Regards,
Jordi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 7:23 PM
Subject: Opportunistic Tunneling
> Hi,
>
> As the Unmanaged Analysis document is currently at WG Last Call, the
> biggest issue appears to be the so-called "opportunistic tunneling",
> i.e., automatic tunneling which would be possible without set-up or
> ISP support. Examples of these are 6to4 and Teredo. (No other
> specific proposals have been made.) We need to figure out how to move
> forward. The critical questions are at least:
>
> 1) Do we agree that this is something we need in the first place?
> * Considering user-driven deployment, maybe not.
> - example: the user says "I want to use application X" or "I
> want to use functionality Y", where X or Y would require
> IPv6.
> * Considering large-scale vendor-centric deployment, probably
> yes.
>
> 2) What are the models for deploying relays, considering the economic
> or deployment considerations (in-host, in-site, network)?
> * And what are the implications of any approach?
> * Can we decide on the recommended model?
>
> 3) For NAT traversing, opportunistic tunneling, are there any
> features in Teredo which are missing or are unnecessary? I.e.,
> how good a fit would it be? Are there alternatives?
>
> We're soliciting input on how to best handle this situation. Please
> send feedback to the chairs or on the list. Tentatively, we're
> scheduling 20-30 minutes for discussion in Seoul, but how productive
> such discussion would be would depend on the framing and the contents
> of presentations and/or discussion.
>
> Please send your ideas (if any).
>
> Thanks,
> Pekka & Jonne
>
**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.