Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-03.txt

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

OK, that's fine JIm.

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:35:11AM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
> Hi Tim, 
> 
> > > > If Scenario 3 is an IPv6-only infrastructure and IPv6 nodes, that 
> > > > wish to communicate with a separate IPv4-only network, 
> > then you're 
> > > > in the NAT-PT, TRT or ALG space (depending which layer 
> > you want to 
> > > > translate at).
> > > 
> > > If you mean IPv6 only stack yes but not dual stack which 
> > adds v4 in v6 
> > > tunnels as solution.
> > 
> > OK, but that needs to be clarified, I think.   In the one 
> > case you need 
> > protocol translation, in the other case you can tunnel.   If 
> > scenario 3
> > is both, state it clearly, if it isn't, state it clearly :)
> 
> OK none of the scenarios will address IPv6 ONLY nodes where translation
> is needed. That will have to be part of the analysis for really long
> term planning after this spec moves forward.
> 
> >  
> > > I don't believe we will see IPv6 ONLY stacks for a very long time.
> > 
> > Possibly, but hybrid stack nodes with only IPv6 configured is 
> > happening now?
> 
> Yes I know but that is different than an IPv6 ONLY node.  As IPv4 can be
> used if required and avoid translation. 
> 
> >  
> > > > If Scenario 3 is IPv6 infrastructure (routers, and 
> > IPv6-only on the 
> > > > wire) but with some dual-stack nodes or legacy applications 
> > > > communicating with each other over IPv4 (e.g.
> > > > the application is IPv4 only) or to IPv4 nodes outside 
> > the network, 
> > > > then you may be in the DSTM solution space.
> > > 
> > > And tunnel broker space too.
> > 
> > Yes, you could run an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel broker.  I don't 
> > think I've seen one yet, but it's possible of course.
> 
> I am hearing of prototypes.
> 
> >  
> > Since we are having a minor revision, my request is thus just 
> > to clarify what Scenario 3 is (or indeed if there is perhaps 
> > a Scenario 4). 
> 
> I hope to have edit update today submitted or tomorrow Scenario 3 will
> be clarified and in new applicability section but will not add scenario
> 4 as that would be a significant change for this last call.
> 
> Thanks
> /jim
>  
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> >