Re: "non-authenticated" tunneling [Re: draft-durand-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-00.txt]

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

In addition to that I will say that the ISP could be also interested in offering the service non only to _its_customers but also to:
- _its_customers when traveling
- _other_customers in order to convince them about the service and gain then

I still feel that non-authenticated is acceptable ;-), specially because is a clear contraposition to the authenticated mode. Unless we agree that the correct denomination is registered and non-registered modes ?

Whatever is the final name, I really believe that both modes are a must.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Durand" <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
To: "Gert Doering" <gert@Space.Net>
Cc: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>; "S. Daniel Park" <soohong.park@samsung.com>; <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: "non-authenticated" tunneling [Re: draft-durand-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-00.txt]


> What is the desired level of interaction from an ISP with its IPv4 
> customers
> to access the new IPv6 service?
> 
> The assumption on the draft is that an ISP may be tempted to offer the 
> service
> as a try-out to any of _its_ customer without asking anything, no 
> registration, no fees,
> no tracking, no guaranty, no nothing. The so called 'non authenticated' 
> mode
> (I should rename this 'non-registered' mode) was design for that.
> The draft also made the assumption that for anything more production 
> oriented,
> ISPs would like to see some kind of registration, at least for logging 
> perspective.
> 
> Supporting two modes of operation certainly add complexity, so the 
> question is,
> is it worth it? Is there a real need from ISPs to offer this non 
> registered mode?
> 
> - Alain.
> 
> 
>