Re: Recent navel gazing - we need to stop wasting cycles on FUD

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Tony Hain wrote:
> 6to4 
> - Enterprise -> allows multiple subnet deployments behind the tunnel
> endpoint with a public IPv4 address. 

I don't think any serious enterprise would want to do anything as
unreliable as 6to4.  Just get a configured tunnel w/ prefix delegation
or native access.

> - Unmanaged -> this is both simple, and in common use as an automated prefix
> delegation approach.

Agreed, esp. when the gateway is upgraded.  Unfortunately, the quality 
is rather bad still.
 
> ISATAP 
> - Enterprise -> where the apps & hosts move before the infrastructure (this
> is reasonable both from the perspective of demonstrating value, and from the
> perspective that hosts are generally upgraded before infrastructure), 

All you need is one tunnel box e.g. to act as a tunnel server, it's
not an "all or no infrastructure" deal.  Similarly, if you use VLANs
inside the enterprise, more often than not, you could inject native v6
in all the VLANs just by deploying one router (see the draft about
this).  Sites have deployed native v6 using these methods over 3 years
ago, and still running..

> - ISP -> it has value in the Cable operator environment where the management
> side of the gateway is addressed in private IPv4 space, yet the gateway
> needs to tunnel across older DOCSIS equipment that will take years to
> replace (6to4 would work with public addresses, and manual config is always
> an option). 

Any particular reason why a tunnel server solution would not be 
applicable?
 
> Teredo
> - Unmanaged -> automated single subnet & needed to deal with the NAT managed
> by someone else problem (home / hotel / airport ...). 

Right.

> - ISP -> automated single subnet & needed to deal with the NAT managed by
> someone else problem (the charging for addresses approach has resulted in
> customers deploying infrastructure, and getting a service behind that device
> is proving to be an issue). 

I don't think I understand what you mean for _ISP_ here.  Deploying a
Teredo relay/server for its customers?  I don't think they'll bother,
because such relays/servers must be deployed globally as well, so what
benefit would it bring to them?  But if someone wants to do it, why
not...
 
> Tunnel brokers as a class
> - ISP -> for the aggressive ISP that wants to take mindshare away from local
> competitors, there is an opportunity to offer new applications (this is
> really no different than the Dial-up ISP case tunneling over the lethargic
> PSTN).

It's interesting that you don't see tunnel brokers as a solution for
an ISP that wants to offer v6 to its *own* users.  Any particular
reason why not?

You're making assumption that the TB service for other users would not 
be free, right?  (Otherwise the ISP would not have a point -- but 
would rather just advertise like "switch to us, we offer you free 
tunnel broker if you get your v4 service from us!").
 
-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings