RE: v6 deployment in general [Re: tunnel broker deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]]

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

Suggestions to take or leave Pekka: Just build specifications.  Stop
trying to define and mandate policy.  Provide specs that inform of
dangers.  No one cares or listens to anytbing else from a standards
body. 6to4 is a done deal.  Security notes are good.  Other mechansims
are TBD with ISATAP and TSP leading behind 6to4.  Manual config will
always exist.  More adoption will need more mechanisms for the tool box.


/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:08 PM
> To: Alain Durand
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: v6 deployment in general [Re: tunnel broker 
> deployment [RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]]
> 
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Alain Durand wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 2004, at 11:23 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > >> This won't work with non-static IP's and getting the same prefix 
> > >> back though,
> > >
> > > Sure; but this would probably be sufficient for the average John 
> > > Doe, right?
> > 
> > What John Doe wants is irrelevant. What the IPv6 
> applications require 
> > is.
> 
> Also, on the other hand, IPv6 is rather irrelevant unless we 
> can make the assumption that it will be used by John Doe.  
> I.e., if we want to change the Internet, we need mass.  Guys 
> like John Doe are the key to obtaining that critical mass.
> 
> > Now, are you telling us that the potential IPv6 'killer 
> apps' will not 
> > need stable addresses? Making this assumption is very 
> dangerous, IMHO.
> 
> I'm not saying that at all.  I'm just saying that there are 
> limits to the requirements for the duration of such 
> addresses.  For example, must John Doe's address stay stable 
> if he shuts down his home PC, and leavs for 1-week trip to 
> Tahiti, and then returns?  
> 
> It might not hurt, but the applications and the systems must 
> IMHO be designed to deal with the situation that when they 
> (re)start, the address might be different. I.e., the lifetime 
> of the address does not
> *necessarily* have to be longer than the lifetime of the 
> application process.
> 
> On the other hand, as long as John Doe's home PC stays 
> powered on and connected to the Internet, his address should 
> stay stable.
> 
> > >> They found MSN, Yahoo, Google, KaZaA etc. Friends tell 
> that is the 
> > >> trick to it, if there is interresting enough content 
> even 13 year 
> > >> olds can configure it.
> > >
> > > Right. If we assume IPv6 would have killer applications 
> which would 
> > > make the users really eager to get it, sure -- everything would 
> > > probably be simpler.  But in the absence of such, we need 
> to forward 
> > > without them :-).
> > 
> > In the absence of such, what is the justification of IPv6?
> 
> I'd rather not open this can of worms, but leave it as an 
> exercise of the reader.
> 
> As some have pointed out, we wouldn't have needed anything 
> other than dual-stack (or the like) if we assumed that there 
> will be strong killer app.  When such app would appear, 
> everyone would just upgrade, end of story, happy end.  
> Unfortunately, IMHO, we need to move forward without making 
> an assumption that such an app would miraculously appear; 
> there will probably be ones (e.g., some p2p apps) which will 
> help to drive the transition along, but again, this is 
> something we should be counting on.
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 
> 
>