RE : POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?

["BAUDOT Alain FTRD/DMI/CAE" <alain.baudot@francetelecom.com>]

c) because I don't understand why just considering teredo and not, at the same time, the other mechanisms  according to the WG "selection" process.
a) in order to move forward. And ISATAP, TSP, DSTM, STEP, etc should benefit from that, as well.

Anyway I've got a couple of concerns with teredo:
- it deals with a specific adressing plan. I quite agree it could be a kind of no start, and phasing out will result in some renumbering
- it is host oriented and not routeur/network oriented.

Teredo is usually identified as a deployment solution without ISPs, and obviously does not meet their requirements. So, even if I don't really see the deployment model, why not simply deploy the same mechanism, first by non-ISPs and later by "real" ones ?    
 
Alain.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] De la part de Pekka Savola
Envoyé : vendredi 30 avril 2004 19:32
À : v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Objet : 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)