dynamic v4 addresses over v4-in-v6 tunnel [RE: DSTM]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Bound, Jim wrote:
> Operational requirements by the user:
[...]
> 3.  The use of IPv4 addresses for legacy communications should be
> temporary IPv4 addresses for a specific time.

I'm not sure I personally buy the other requirements, but for the 
argument's sake..

What kind of requirement is this?  How is this different for a 
site currently deploying v4?

In other words: if we need IPv4-in-IPv6 tunneling, let's discuss that.  
If we need something more than the existing IPv4 mechanisms for making
the v4 addresses used over such tunnels more dynamic (e.g., if DHCPv4
with short leases is not enough), let's discuss that separately as
well.  But let's not get these two features mixed up, having to
sacrifice a baby to get the bathwater :)

I have the impression that a lot of people have "IPv6-in-IPv4 == DSTM"  
in their head.  I want to break that assumption, as DSTM seems to
offer a lot more than that, because specifying a solution without
clearly defining its components seems unwise.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings