RE: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans-00.txt

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

then the document title should say that in some form in the title
because it will not be useful to users building native IPv6 networks
with IPv6 as the dominant backbone routing protocol e.g. 3GPP IMS, U.S.
DOD nets, ISPs building for IPv6 device attacments to the network, or
Moonv6 Network Pilot as examples of early adoption and deployment.  But
I thought I saw parts in the spec that did speak to IPv6 networks I will
check again?

I also agree with you this document is in a sense boiling the ocean and
that does not work.  I also right now do not believe this is possible.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 12:16 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans-00.txt
> 
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > > A number of transition mechanism have been defined 
> already: Teredo, 
> > > TB/TS, TSP, STEP, ISATAP, 6to4, tunnels, etc. All of them 
> work when
> > 
> > Your missing DSTM in this analysis why is that?
> 
> I think the document is focused on obtaining _IPv6_ 
> connectivity in IPv4-only networks, not the other way around.
> 
> ...
> 
> FWIW, I personally agree with Brian's concern of too 
> ambitious goals.  
> Too ambituous goals often result in nothing getting done, 
> instead of what might have been realistic.  So, if it stays, 
> it probably needs "health warnings" or th like :)
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 
>