Re: Opportunistic Tunneling

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Bob Hinden wrote:
> The vendor supplies the application requires (or benefits) from IPv6 that 
> the user wants to use.  The vendor can supply it so it requires the user to 
> acquire IPv6 service, or it build into its product the ability to detect 
> existing IPv6 connectivity on the users system and if there isn't there, 
> initiate create it via one of the automatic tunneling mechanisms.

(For clarification, in my mail I implied that both the app and the 
host OS is provided by the same vendor.  They could be separate as 
well, of course.  If they are separate, the process is clearly 
user-driven.)
 
> Both scenarios are vendor and user.  The only difference I can see is if 
> the vendor includes the capability to automatically create IPv6 
> connectivity. Both are driven by the user (wanting to use an application) 
> and enabled by the vendor (including it in the product).  The vendor can't 
> make the user do anything (or even buy it's products).  I don't see the 
> distinction you are proposing as being useful.

I think there is a distinction.  There seems to be a lot of difference 
between:

1) the vendor pushing an updated (free) product to its customers,
"forcing it down their throat for their own best", which requires IPv6
connectivity, and

2) the vendor supplying a new application, or an application developer
supplying an application, which the user may (or may not) want to use,
which would require or profit from IPv6 connectivity. (IMHO, this is
comparable to Erik's RealPlayer point.)

The former, I consider "host-vendor -driven".  The latter,
"user-driven".  (Of course, the vendor will play some role here as
well, but the role is entirely different from 1).

The practical implication I see here is that for 1), automatic
tunneling mechanisms are a strict requirement; tunnel-broker -like
models are optional, but not adequate on their own.  For 2), automatic
tunneling mechanisms may be useful, but not a strict requirement.  
Tunnel-broker -like models are a a possible way to achieve the
solution.
 
> More importantly in the current world, a vendor who doesn't include the 
> capability to create IPv6 connectivity where it doesn't exist isn't going 
> to see very much IPv6 application usage.  

Agree.  But remembering the distinction above, the tools which might
be acceptable to create that connectivity vary depending on whether
the user wants to use an application or not.

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