Re: Tunnel Set-up requirements: Issue to be resolved

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@Sun.COM>]

> > Question: in the non-registered mode is there an ability to have a 
> > mechanism
> > by which the same host gets the same IPv6 address each time it sets up
> > a tunnel?
> 
> Not today. Do you want to require such a mechanism?

If we want the non-registered mode to be the default, I think it
makes sense to make this mode provide realtively stable addresses.
Thus having the protocol being able to, at the ISPs choice, provide 
stable addresses as well as prefix delegation makes sense to me.

> Question: are we not already in solution space?

Don't think so, but there isn't a hard boundary between requirements and
solutions.

The reason I was asking is because we are talking about requirements
being placed on the protocol without having defined what
the protocol does; whether the protocol includes the registration
exchange or whether the protocol can operate based on a registration exchange
done with some other mechanism.

For example, if the protocols on which we are placing requirements
includes the registration exchange, then I think we need to have
requirements about how flexible the registration exchange needs to be
since different ISPs might use different pieces of information
and different existing mechanisms to identify their customers.

 Erik