Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> >   IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling mechanism
> 
> Did your analysis indicate what type of configuration support is
> needed for this, and whether direction connection (e.g. between
> two hosts on the same LAN) is required?
> 
> The reason I'm asking is because potentially the IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling
> is just as rich as the IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling with lots of different
> possible requirements. Trying to narrow things down would be useful.

(I am not sure if I understand what you meant with direct connection,
above -- clearly if you're directly connected, you don't need to 
tunnel to your peer..)

This is currently only pointed to from the unmanaged analysis, case D
(copied below), which practically seems to say "configured v4-in-v6,
with a tunnel endpoint discovery mechanism".  So, this, at least,
seems to rather straightforward and simple.  The expectation is that
you have an association with the tunnel endpoint.  I think this is
(luckily!) a relatively narrow requirement.

from the unmanaged analysis:

   Local IPv4 capable hosts may want to still access IPv4-only
   services. The proper way to do this for dual-stack nodes in the
   unmanaged network is to develop a form of "IPv4 over IPv6"
   tunneling. There are no standardized solutions and has been very
   little effort devoted by the IETF to this issue, although there is
   ongoing work with [DSTM] and [TSP]. A solution needs to be
   standardized. The standardization will have to cover configuration
   issues, i.e., how to provision the IPv4 capable hosts with the
   address of the local IPv4 tunnel servers.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings