Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

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

On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 11:22:12PM +0300, Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Our own experience (non-small enterprise) is that we prefer to deploy
a structured (configured) transition mechanism - in our case VLAN-based 
IPv6 propogation - rather than an unstructured (automatic) method.  So
we don't see any need for ISATP in our particular scenario.   However,
I can see why some others see some attraction.
 
> I would like to hear what other people feel about this! (Pekka's view I,
> at least, know already.)

I think also maybe 6to4 relays should be considered for ISP analysis, 
where at the moment brokers and 6PE are cited.   In the case of European
NRENs, 66% have a 6to4 relay, less than 33% a broker, aimed at local
NREN communities.

I also believe an enterprise (university, in our case) can offer a broker 
or 6to4 relay in the absence of the NREN doing so, or in the case of a
staff or student users in a home network, their home network ISP not 
offering one (because the RTT from the national commercial network to the
national academic network will be low).

What's the agenda again for v6ops?  How much time do we have for this
minor little topic? ;)

Tim