Re: Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-01

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

Hi Florent,

A couple of comments on comments.

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:25:43PM -0500, Florent Parent wrote:
> >
> >>>As per ZCT, does this draft apply to nodes or networks too?
> 
> yes.

OK, I was just wondering if we wanted a quite lightweight solution whether
is should apply to nodes and/or networks.  If there is a distinction, then
it seems your work should handle both, while (the lighterweight) ZCT does 
nodes only.  But if we do end up with some (re)merger the generic solution 
should handle both.

> >>>The NAT and dynamic IPv4 address support should be requirements?
> 
> Yes. Do you think they should not?

I think they are certainly desirable :)   In ZCT, not so sure (since ZCT is
an intra-provider requirement, it seems).
 
> >   This discovery should be automatic when the protocol is used within
> >   an ISP network.  There is no service discovery requirements when used
> >   outside the provider network (roaming users, 3rd party ISP).
> >
> >>>But if I'm at the IETF, outside my university/ISP network, I really do
> >   want to discover a tunnel end point automatically...?
> 
> Yes, which is why its written "no service discovery requirements when used 
> outside the provider network".

I guess I read it differently... as a user I would like automatic discovery
wherever I am; I think you are writing from the provider perspective?
 
> >6.  Compatibility with other Transition Mechanisms
> >
> >   The tunnel set-up protocol is not required to be compatible with any
> >   existing transition mechanism.  Although, a great deal of experience
> >   can be drawn from the operation of tunnel brokers currently using the
> >   TSP protocol [I-D.blanchet-v6ops-tunnelbroker-tsp].
> >
> >>>But are various TSPs compatible / interoperable with each other?
> 
> "various TSPs" = independent implementations?

How many TSP implementations are there? :)

Tim