RE: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?

["Liu Min" <liumin@ict.ac.cn>]

I think NAT traversal in IPv6 transition is a very important issue and
should be solved. Although Teredo needs special IPv6 address prefix and
need Teredo relay in every IPv6 network, it is reasonably secure and
already out there. There are also other mechanisms for this issue and
each of them has different properties and applying scenarios. We should
go forward with these transition mechanisms and let the market to make
the final decision.

 
 

Best Wishes,
 
Liu Min
Institute of Computing Technology
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Tel: (86-10) 6256 5533-9240 
E-mail: liumin@ict.ac.cn


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf
> Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:32 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)
> 
>