Re: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

On Mar 11, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> > 1- There is a clear need for some assisted IPv6/UDP/IPv4 tunnel
> > management.
> > The tunnel broker model seems to work fine as demonstrated by TSP,
> > which I regard as an existence proof.
> > This area need to be standardized, by advancing TSP or an
> > evolution of it on the standard track.
>
> I'd rather see the IPv6 in UDP protocol be defined

This too needs to happen. The point I'm trying to make is that I see
a clear need to work in the general area of assisted IPv6/UDP/IPv4 
tunneling.
A number of things need to be specified, defining IPv6 in UDP is 
clearly one of them.

> As for automatic 'repointing' of tunnels I have written and
> implemented draft-massar-v6ops-heartbeat-00 for those cases.

This also need to be studied further.

> Is there a ban on developing tools based on TSP?

There is a ban that was institute in the last days of NGtrans and that
was carried on in v6ops that forbid to work on transition mechanism as 
wg items
until the scenario document were finished.

I think we are due to lift this ban and restart wg activities in the
general area of assisted tunneling mechanism as it is clear now
that such work is needed to address the scenarios in scope for v6ops.
Delaying this further would be irresponsible.

> I do have another, somewhat more of my own 'problem' with TSP
> and that is that I can't seem to make it fit the model of the
> SixXS tunnelbroker we are running, which is why we described
> our own protocol + tools for configuring clients. Draft not
> ready yet though. For configuration only the serverside of
> TSP could be implemented, but I guess it would be more reading
> the older drafts and the sources of tspc to make that work.

As I said earlier, I view TSP as an existence proof, not necessarily as 
the final solution.
it may be, but it is not proven.

	- Alain.