[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re :automatic tunnel mechanism selection [Re: tunnel broker deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]

To: soohong.park@samsung.com
Subject: Re: Re :automatic tunnel mechanism selection [Re: tunnel broker deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, "v6ops@ops.ietf.org " <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: "Your message with ID" <0HUM008MYW4WWR@ms3.samsung.com>
Reply-to: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>

> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daniel-dhc-ipv6in4-opt-01.txt 

I think the technique in this draft is useful to consider in what Alain
called case b) (where the ISP is providing the IPv6 service but
is doing it using tunneling over IPv4 to avoid upgrading all
their infrastructure to support IPv6 on day one).

  Erik

References:
- Re :automatic tunnel mechanism selection [Re: tunnel broker deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]
  - From: PARK SOO HONG <soohong.park@samsung.com>

Prev by Date: Re: static vs dynamic
Next by Date: Re: v6 deployment in general [Re: tunnel broker deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]]
Previous by thread: Re: Re :automatic tunnel mechanism selection [Re: tunnel broker deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]
Next by thread: Re: Re :automatic tunnel mechanism selection [Re: tunnel broker deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread