Re: REVIEW NEEDED: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt

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

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Tim Chown wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:03:18PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> >>So, IMHO, enterprises can certainly test IPv6 using 6to4, but I don't
> >>think it would be a good idea to recommend it for much more than that.
> >
> >
> >Yes, and then the "test" is little more than a SOHO-like testbed, where
> >6to4 may be commonly used anyway...
> >
> 
> We don't have to agree on this. If an enterprise can find a configured
> tunnel provider, fine. If they can't, they may choose a tunnel broker
> or a 6to4 relay. It isn't the IETF's job to tell them.

As it's an analysis document making recommendations, just as per the other
three analysis docs we should do that... e.g. just as we made Teredo a
last resort mechanism for unmanaged, we might agree to place 6to4 as last
resort for an enterprise.

My ordering would be (topology being alike):

1. native

2. manually configured tunnel

3. tunnel broker

4. 6to4

i.e. put native, managed connectivity ahead of automatic, esp. where the
automatic has less predictable behaviour.   Other factors also come to
bear, like using 2002::/16 and heaving to renumber...

-- 
Tim