RE: updated v6ops agenda, presentation of way forward

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

Thanks for my answer I agree and makes sense to get this done.  FYI
early adopters are setting up tunnels now and using multiple approaches
to discover TEPS.  The ones I am seeing dominant right now are private
company/provider tunnel brokers with set up and hand configured TEPs,
mannual tunnel configured TEPs at edges, and to lesser degree DHCPv6
with custom extensions.  So a TEP discovery solution is required for
sure.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:05 AM
> To: Jeroen Massar
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: updated v6ops agenda, presentation of way forward
> 
> 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
> 
>