Re: updated v6ops agenda, presentation of way forward

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

First, a clarification to Jim:

> For clarity.  You say multiple proposals are "probably" ok?  That 
> sounds dictatorial and I don't think you mean't it that way did you? 
> The objective of the IETF is to bring good ideas to our body?

Sorry for the word: too few words.  What I meant to say is that 
multiple proposals are of course OK, but because then the WG would 
have to apply a selection process, it would be desirable (for speed, 
etc.) not to have *too* many proposals: i.e., having multiple 
proposals doesn't have inherent value in itself :).  Selection among 
many would likely be a time-consuming process, so the attempt would be 
to try to propose one that most people would be comfortable with.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 8<-----------------
> Propose a new WG to write a new IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling protocol
> 1. Based on the tunneling requirements write one new protocol
> 2. Work on two components of the solution:
>   a) method to discover the tunnel end-point
>   b) specification of the tunnel set-up protocol
> ----------------->8
>
> There are three components to "Tunneling", the third is the actual
> protocol, but you mention that in the first part, probably a rephrase
> would be better.

Agreed.  We'll try to do that before the final presentation.

> Is this only about Tunneling IPv6 over something, or is it a generic
> tunneling solution,

Only about v6 over v4[-udp].  It was felt that the focus must be on 
what we know reasonably well.

That is not to say that the solution could not be done in such a way 
that extending it would be simple later on, but that is not a goal of 
the work.

> next to that there are a number of drafts which have been submitted 
> for quite some time already surrounding this subject and 
> specifically for doing IPv6 over NAT- crippled IPv4 hosts. I don't 
> recall seeing a draft about Hexago's v6udpv4 protocol though, not 
> that it is complex but still.

Yes, there have definitely been drafts :).  It seemed that these have 
some short-comings though, so that trying to merge the best parts of 
each to one proposal might make sense.

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