Re: Opportunistic Tunneling

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@hexago.com>]

[[ note: post by non-subscriber ]]

-- Thursday, February 26, 2004 08:38:53 +0200 Pekka Savola
<pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote/a ecrit:

> 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, 

then I would suggest that you write a draft.

>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.

I'm even more confused about your statement on user/vendor. Does not seem
to me relevent to our technical discussion.


> (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!?!?".

well, yes, we all want ipv6 to not be shown on the user interface. However,
playing devil's advocate, it happens a lot in IPv4 and it happened to me on
a cell phone recently... oh well... that is "life"...

seriously, I think we agree that ipv6 connectivity and addressing should be
as transparent to the user as possible. 

However, I don't understand where you are going to. To me, the different
tools we are talking about are similar to that respect: isatap, 6to4,
teredo, TSP are all, from the user point of view (i.e. the cell phone
user), a "driver" in the operating system: i.e. they don't care and don't
have to manage it. And the infrastructure and services to make them usable
are provided by some downstream providers, either the direct one, or
another one  downstream.

Marc.


>  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
> 



------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Hexago
tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------