RE: DSTM

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

> In DSTM there is a single place where this happens: the 
> gateway where the tunnels terminate. "4over6" could be more 
> flexible as packets don't necessarily flow through a single 
> gateway. We may even provide for some kind of "proxy 4over6" 
> tunneling so that IPv4-only hosts in otherwise IPv6-only 
> networks may enjoy connectivity.

Multiple TEPs can be provided to the client for redundancy and router
failover deploying dual rail routers supports the mission critical case,
and if the link is cut or blown up there is custom software to inform
clients of that etc.  I see your point it is worth discussion and we
need to say something about this in our next draft.  Thanks

Note I believe your concern applys to all transition mechanisms and do
we need to put this health warning on all transition mechanisms and in
our scenarios as we do security?   Again is this just picking on DSTM or
should the question be applied to all mechanisms (not mean't as negative
question just a question)?  As a question of fair and open process?

I don't think we can solve this problem in specs but implementation will
resolve it is my view today but listening to the list.

In DSTM it is assumed that an IPv4 address from the DNS returned which
begins the DSTM client the TSP or DHCPv6 or RPC to the server will match
correct TEP and CIDR or IPv4 high order bits of address for network
route.

Regards,
/jim