[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms
Hi Jonne,
In general I agree with your view, but from our point of view, you're missing some work already being done that cover some of the gaps we are missing:
1) draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc work fits perfectly to fill the analysis of Zero-configured IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling mechanism, and in addition we are already since a few weeks working in the solution document. Of course, this should be considered, same as the rest of the candidates, or even looking for a solution that could take components from the different candidates. Our target is to have a document submitted at the end of August as latest.
2) We are also working, in combination with the previous documents, in the IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling mechanism with NAT traversal support. This is already described in the draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans, and a new accompanying document with the proposed solutions (may be several). Our target is also end of August. Also I guess this is what you call zero-configuration both at the client or the server ?
3) Regarding Tunnel Server/Broker, our work on this is obviously very complementary and we have already worked on ideas for improving TSP, with the view on 1) and 2).
4) Our proposed solutions should also work for IPv4 over IPv6 Tunneling, but this has not been our main goal for the August target, but probably we can also take a look on that, and include at least some hints to be further developed later on.
We are implementing also all those solutions, and our target is to have everything ready before end of this year. The way we are doing this, will most probably allow the auto-transition to take advantage of other existing mechanism, in a modular approach, allowing also new future mechanism to be easily integrated, both in the client and the "server" or "tunnel end point" or whatever we call it.
I will provide more details in my presentation.
Regards,
Jordi
---- Original Message ----
From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:07 PM
Subject: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms
> 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.
**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.