Re: DSTM

["M-K. Shin" <mshin@nist.gov>]

I agree on Marc's point.

Also, some enterprise scenarios (i.e., dominant IPv6 network deployment,
- it is certainly in the short term) need DSTM.

Thanks,
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Myung-Ki Shin, Ph.D.| mshin@nist.gov
ETRI/NIST           | 820 West Diamond Avenue
                    | Gaithersburg, MD 20899


Marc Blanchet wrote:

> speaking about v4 in v6 encapsulation for v6 only networks, DSTM has two
> variations for address assignment: one using DHCPv6 (here named
> DSTM-DHCPv6) and one with TSP (here named (DSTM-TSP). So the TSP tunnel
> broker is a solution that covers both v6 in v4, v6 in udp v4 (i.e. nat
> traversal) and v4 in v6 (DSTM-TSP). This is very appealing to many large
> sites that need the three cases to be handled.
>
> Some markets are telling us that v4 in v6 encap is important and key. It
> will be very bad if the IETF does not consider solutions in this space.
> >From Thomas comment about when, the danger again is that non-interoperable
> implementations will come out, just because the spec is not stable (i.e.
> RFC number), this is really bad for the whole community, including IETF.
>
> I guess that a subset of the wg is interested in v4 in v6 encap (DSTM) and
> we could probably work in a small design group to do the final work and
> then have the wg review and publish. This won't consume much of wg work and
> will accomplish something important.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Marc.
>
> -- Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:31:16 -0400 "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
> wrote/a ecrit:
>
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Marc Blanchet
> Hexago
> tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
> ------------------------------------------
> http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
> ------------------------------------------