[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?

I think "a" is the right choice.

In the Abilene network we have one 6to4 relay active with two more in deployment. I'd be happy to promote deployment of one or more Teredo relays once I understand how to make this happen in a low maintenance fashion. In my opinion, Teredo provides a useful function not available with other options.

Bill Cerveny
Backbone Network Infrastructure Engineering
Internet2



--On Friday, April 30, 2004 8:32 PM +0300 Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:

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)