Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

["Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>]

Hello everybody,
(chair hat off - this is totally my personal view)

when writing the proposal for the WG, Pekka and I noticed that we have
different view on some issues. In one topic especially, we seemed to
have pretty opposing views. This topic is the role of ISATAP. 

I do personally believe that ISATAP is pointed as the most promising
solution for automatic tunneling in the 3GPP analysis document and thus,
should be listed as a solution to be standardized. 

I thought even that there was at least some support in the WG for ISATAP
and it had been seen also at least somewhat applicable for enterprise
scenarios. This is of course difficult to say as the enterprise analysis
document is not existing, yet. 

However, I would hereby propose as an individual the addition of ISATAP
in the list of mechanisms that should be standardized on standards
track. (Of course, there has to be consensus in the WG to do that.)

I would like to hear what other people feel about this! (Pekka's view I,
at least, know already.)

Cheers,

Jonne.
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 23:07, ext Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)
wrote:
> Dear v6ops WG,
> 
> our very own AD, David, sent the WG list mail on the July 1st about the
> way forward and how he sees the way forward for our little WG. Pekka and
> I have discussed the topic and found enough consensus among ourselves to
> propose a way forward for the WG. Of course, you the WG, have to say if
> you agree with the following approach. We believe that the discussion
> should be started now on the WG list and then continue it in the
> face-to-face meeting in San Diego to work the details further. The final
> decision for the way forward is of course for the WG to make in the
> mailing list - as always in the IETF.
> 
> The proposal is to derive the different transition mechanisms from the
> Scenarios/Analysis documents and identify either the matching, existing
> mechanism, or identify gap and list possible solutions. We have done our
> own preliminary analysis. The proposal bellow is for discussion and
> should not be considered the final list. We would like to have
> discussion if it really does identify all needed mechanisms and just the
> needed mechanisms. 
> 
> Bellow there is a list of mechanisms. This the list that Pekka and I put
> together in quite short time. It may or may not be correct and that's
> something that we have to discuss on the list and in the face-to-face in
> the meeting. So, this is just the baseline to start the discussion.
> 
> In the interest of time, we propose to do this on the list and after
> running the process document it into a draft. I can do the draft editing
> myself.
> 
> In the following, is the analysis of the different scenarios/analysis
> documents (in no particular order).
> 
> 3gpp-analysis:
>  SIP v4/v6 transition mechanism
>  Zero-configured IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling mechanism
> 
> unmanaged:
>   Teredo*
>   Configured tunneling through NAT
>   IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling mechanism
> 
> ISP:
>   BGP-tunneling*
>   Tunnel server/broker
> 
> Enterprise:
>   Analysis not done.
> 
> Summary:
>   Teredo*
>   BGP-Tunneling*
>   SIP v4/v6 transition mechanism - No candidates
>   Tunnel Server/Broker - TSP, Silkroad, Ayiya, STEP possible candidates
>   Configured tunneling through NATs - No (direct) candidates, but Tunnel
>         Server/Broker also addresses this
>   Zero-configured IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling mechanism - TSP, Ayiya, STEP,
>         ISATAP possible candidates.
>   IPv4 over IPv6 Tunneling - DSTM, TSP, Ayiya possible candidates; many
>         tunnel server/broker approaches also address this.
> 
> (* Teredo and BGP-tunneling are already moving forward)
> 
> The suggestion is to go forward with Teredo/BGP-Tunneling immediately,
> work on SIP v4/v6 transition in SIP WG(s), and find the correct place
> for finding suitable solution for the following:
>  
>   a) zero-configuration both at the client or the server,
>   b) IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels (with NAT traversal support), and
>   c) IPv4-over-IPv6 tunnels
> 
> This work should take use of 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-00.txt.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonne & Pekka - the chairs.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com