Re: DSTM

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:14:27AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 
> Second, we have to define what "completed" means. What is the decision
> point? We have actually all but completed the "unmanaged networks"
> evaluation: we went through the working group last call, and the
> document is now on the IESG plate. Based on this scenario, doing work on
> Teredo is not spurious.

Well, we saw recently in the discussion on the enterprise scenarios draft
that I proposed 4 scenarios to be considered, one of which lends itself 
to be addressed by DSTM.   Pekka objected that this was a "minority case",
and I don't know what happened after that.

So we can easily write in a scenario for DSTM in the enterprise draft, and
Jim has expanded already on what that is.   Likewise we can do so for ISATAP.   

Everything hangs on what the WG chair then dictates.   But the fact is that
there are networks out there wanting to run IPv6 only infrastructure
with IPv4 apps/data to be served, so as Marc and Jordi say, this is a real
requirement now.  As such I believe we should work on it in the IETF.  

The question from "on high" is where do we put the focus?  How wide is
our net to be?
 
> Now, for the record, I am a strong believer in letting a thousand RFC
> bloom and letting the market decide. The IETF WG should not be in the
> business of evaluating business cases. We should definitely work on
> Teredo, and also ISATAP, DSTM, and tunnel brokers.

The beauty of the transition toolbox is that everyone can reach in and pick
out a different tool (or tools) for their situation.   Even in similar
scenarios, ISPs may take different paths, e.g. in a recent European NREN
survey, 75% offered a 6to4 relay for their users, 25% tunnel broker(s).

ISPs in Asian networks will also likely deploy different solutions because
they appear more keen to move to IPv6 only infrastructure earlier (e.g.
CERNET in China) - do we let them make up their own solutions just because
the WG chair thinks China is a fringe case?  (Ok those were not Pekka's
words, but they're kind of implied ;)

I agree the scenario work needs to be wrapped up, but I think we should cast
a wide net, not a narrow one.   

Tim