Re: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@hexago.com>]

- rereading the initial poll text, it appears as if there are two requests
in the same poll:
 a) to have teredo as v6ops wg item
 b) to have teredo to "go forward" as PS
- looking at all scenarios documents, it appears to me that the current
off-v6ops-wg tools (teredo, isatap, tsp tunnel broker) all apply to one or
many scenarios. dstm-(dhcpv6|tsp) is not really covered in current
scenarios, but have sufficient use for specific networks. 
- my suggestion is to:
 1) have teredo, isatap, tsp tunnel broker and dstm-(dhcpv6|tsp) as v6ops
working group items. all together.
 2) work further on these.
 3) decide later on which track (experimental, proposed standard, ...).
Experimental would be for a tool which does not have wg concensus to be
proposed standard, but would have implementation/use in the field that
would be useful to have a stable RFC document.
- there is nothing that prevents steps 2 and 3 be done "fast", given that
some tools are already implemented and running on the field.
- <biaised comment> to note that tsp tunnel broker is the only one who
applies to most scenarios including v4 in v6...</biaised comment>

My 2 cents.

Marc.

-- Friday, April 30, 2004 20:32:26 +0300 Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
wrote/a ecrit:

> 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)
> 



------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Hexago
tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------