Re: Opportunistic Tunneling

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > Obviously, this requirement is different if your own ISP is offering
> > this kind of service, or you're entering a contract with the ISP, but
> > the whole point of this "opportunistic" discussion was being able to
> > cope in the scenario when your ISP does NOT offer IPv6 services, and
> > you not being required to "fill any forms" to get IPv6 connectivity.
> 
> Should I take the above to be the definition of "opportunistic tunneling"?
> I'm struggling to understand the motivation for inventing this category thus
> having a definition of what it means would be helpful.

I'm having trouble defining it myself, but I think it's probably 
pretty close.  See also the concerns of path optimization which relate 
to this.
 
> Can you also clarify what "fill in any forms" means. Last time I installed
> software (I think it was a new version of realplayer) I was asked to register
> with name and email address. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing
> is the case when I e.g. upgrade an operating system.
> So why is this considered to be too cumbersome given that users already
> do it?

This is a good point, but I think this is obvious.  If the deployment 
is "user-driven", that's fine.  If the deployment is "vendor-driven", 
that seems unacceptable. (See the note to Bob Hinden about elaboration 
of these.)

That is, if the vendor enables IPv6 on the host, the user won't
appreciate a pop-up message, requiring him to fill in some details --
"IPv6 -- never heard of that!?!?".  Likewise, the vendor can't fill 
them either, at least without resulting to forgery or spoofing.  

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings