[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?
hear hear I resemble that :--)
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Hain
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:32 PM
> To: 'Pekka Savola'; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?
>
> a) - it complements 6to4 for the case where a NAT is in the
> path, as it is equally trivial for consumers to use.
>
> The other technologies we have on the table also need to be
> progressed to PS so the market can sort out which of them it
> really wants. The IETF fails when it tries to dictate
> deployment approaches to the market.
>
> Tony
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 10:32 AM
> > To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > (co-chair hat on)
> >
> > As identified in the scenarios analysis at IETF59 and in
> > draft-savola-v6ops-tunneling-01.txt, there appears to a need which
> > cannot be filled by another mechanism for Teredo at least
> in one major
> > Unmanaged scenario.
> >
> > Is there rough consensus to move forward with Teredo?
> (i.e., to adopt
> > it as WG document in this WG or elsewhere, for Proposed Standard.)
> >
> > The main issue raised has been to call for a more extensive
> analysis
> > for the deployment implications of native, 6to4, and
> Teredo. There is
> > already discussion of this in the Unmanaged Analysis
> document. There
> > seemed to be very little energy or interest in the WG to drive this
> > much further.
> >
> > The options regarrding Teredo at this stage seem to be:
> >
> > a) Go forward with Teredo, hone the deployment implications in the
> > unmanaged analysis in parallel (if and as appropriate),
> >
> > b) Conclude that there is no sufficiently strong need for
> Teredo, and
> > not support its advancement (for PS) at this stage, or
> >
> > c) Decide that we need to analyze the scenarios or deployment more
> > before being able to make a decision.
> >
> > If so, please state where you believe more analysis is needed..
> > and volunteer if possible :)
> >
> > If you have an opinion, please state it within a week,
> i.e., by next
> > Friday, 7th May.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > (co-chair hat off)
>
>
>
>
>