RE: DSTM

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

I support this mail from Itojun.  DSTM does not want special treatment
only to be treated fairly.

But I do want to point out to the WG that we face a delima in the market
that some of these mechanisms like DSTM are being deployed, implemented,
and shipped as product and users are using them.  Out of the IETF we
have to do something and it could be a transition consortia to get more
expedient agreement on transition deployment that would request vendor
and ISP support in such a consortia.  Clearly that could evolve direct
conflict of views with this body for deployment.  It is just to slow
here folks and also some are not getting Ipv6 native deployment and I
will start a separate thread on that for discussion to bring that out
too.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino [mailto:itojun@itojun.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:22 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: 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 	(even if the special treatment is withdrawn)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
> 
>