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

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

Jordi,

You did not respond to my technical supposition which is DSTM is in fact
an optimization for native IPv6.  You can disagree and we can keep
discussing but not answering the question don't help me to believe you
heard my input?

thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 8:50 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans-00.txt
> 
> Jim,
> 
> You're right. Our idea is a dual stack node, with IPv4 
> connectivity (and with or without IPv6 native).
> 
> The point is the case when I travel to an IETF, for example, 
> and I've native IPv6, but the performance is very poor. I can 
> always opt for using a better transition mechanism (example a 
> "near" TB/TS).
> 
> Will make sure to clarify it better.
> 
> As Brian and Pekka said, we are too much ambitious or not 
> clear enough, and already working on improving the document.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
> To: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> Cc: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>; 
> <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:21 PM
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans-00.txt
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************
> Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
> Presentations and videos on line at:
> http://www.ipv6-es.com
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be 
> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be 
> for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not 
> the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, 
> including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>