Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-analysis-01.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> > I have to disagree with this -- STEP or TSP are not analyzed further 
> > in the document, at this point.  Of course, they might be in the 
> > future, and if so, the feature(s) of TSP would certainly be mentioned.
> 
> I don't understand here. Why 6to4 and Teredo are analysed and not TSP and
> STEP?

Because we don't want to repeat the same, generic arguments multiple 
times -- the same ones we're having with the unmanaged document.

Discussion should be added before the document is published though -- 
or we'll just publish a more generic document only.

6to4 and Teredo are a bit easier as there is no "competition".

> >> <MB>don't understand that argument. if "offering native service faster
> >> is considered more important, then why care about 6to4 at all?
> >> 6to4 relay should be considered similar to tunnel broker in terms
> >> of ways to provide ipv6 through the not-yet-upgraded-ipv4 network.
> >> </MB>
> > 
> > This has come through from a couple of operators.  They don't want to 
> > build tunnels etc.
> 
> - agree if large number of manually configured tunnels.
> - disagree if tunnels are managed by tunnel brokers. We have many operators
> as customers who are using tunnel broker at this moment. Different
> operators, I guess, different views.

Different operators certainly have different views -- these also 
extend to tunnel brokering.  Any infrastructure can be considered 
"bad".  Whether this is a real argument is different, of cours.e

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