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

RE: DSTM

> > > > Some enterprises will not want 2002:: or any hard coded prefix in 
> > > > their sites network addresses only IPv6 aggregatable 
> > > address prefixes 
> > > > assigned to the site.  Transition will use IPv6 or IPv4 
> > > addresses not 
> > > > Transition prefixes and DSTM supports that operational model.
> > > 
> > > 	transition technology other than DSTM can support the operational
> > > 	model.  so my question is, why DSTM is given special treatment here?
> > 
> > DSTM is not asking for special treatment here and I don't understand why
> > you say that can you please provide more context why you use the phrase
> > "special treatment"?  Thanks.
> 
> 	i was under impression that you're asking DSTM to be published without
> 	wait finishing scenario/analysis document, or if DSTM being mentioned 
> 	in the documents.  is my impression incorrrect?

	i stand corrrected.  Teredo is receiving special treatment from chairs
	and Jim is upset about it, and asking for the same treatment as Teredo.

	i think neither Teredo nor DSTM should receive special treatment,
	they have to wait till analysis/scenario finishes.  otherwise, it's
	unfair to promote a/some mechanism picked by chairs.

	and chairs has to spell out why they thought Teredo is special.
	(even if the special treatment is withdrawn)

itojun