Re: Request to Advance "Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks"

["Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>]

Hello everybody,

(chair hat on)
there has been a lot of time to comment on this draft (years) and this
has not come up. We have concluded that the draft is good enough to go
to the IESG and it has been submitted. I don't think this is such an
important issue that we would recall the draft from the IESG.

However (ok here we go ;), there is always the IETF last-call. Comments
can be made to the document during the IETF last-call and you are not
too late for that. 

Summary: If you think this is that important issue in the draft that it
really does need changing, you can give the comments during the IETF
last-call. (Well, basically everybody can!) 

Cheers,

Jonne.

On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 12:31, ext Tim Chown wrote:
> I was just about to post with pretty much what Pekka said.
> 
> I would support a comment in the draft saying why ISATAP is not so applicable
> here (and unmanaged usally implies single link, and no managed networking
> within the SOHO site).   The comment could point to the enterprise analysis
> where ISATAP (I hope!) will be soundly included as a tool for disparate nodes
> in a large site.
> 
> Otherwise the reader may think "but what about ISATAP?".
> 
> Tim
> 
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:13:45PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
> > > Not sure what the procedure is here, but I just noticed that this document
> > > fails to mention [ISATAP] as an applicable automatic tunnel mechanism
> > > (without NAT traversal) for unmanaged networks.
> > > 
> > > [ISATAP] is needed for host-to-host and host-to-router interactions
> > > within unmanaged networks - especially accross bridges, ND proxies,
> > > multi-link subnets, etc.
> > 
> > (without any hats)
> > 
> > Good point -- I don't think ISATAP has been discussed to be used
> > *within* an unmanaged network.
> > 
> > I personally think this is probably of very marginal applicability, as
> > the unmanaged networks are very small (typically only one subnet or
> > link), with about one router.  Further, the links almost always used
> > inside an unmanaged network are able to support IPv6.  
> > 
> > So, it would seem that ISATAP might make sense here either if 
> > 
> > 1) the gateway supported IPv6 but the links wouldn't, or
> > 
> > 2) the gateway wouldn't support IPv6, but the nodes in a multi-link
> > unmanaged network would want to use IPv6 between each other.
> > 
> > Both cases seem very marginal to me.
> > 
> > Hence, I personally don't think it is necessary to include ISATAP
> > here.  (Remember that so-called [multi-hop] ad-hoc networks, where
> > this would possibly be more strongly arguable for, were considered out
> > of scope for the v6ops scenarios work, AFAIR.)
> > 
> > And since we're already past WG last call(s), this is probably a moot
> > point in any case..
> > 
> > -- 
> > Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> > Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> > 
> > 
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com