On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 22:46 +0800, Xiao Bing Guo wrote: > In addition, when I go through the justification for the IPv6 Tunnel > Configuration work, I find that there is already one and only one > proposal that could meet all the identified requirements. The sole > survival is STEP. I hope it is just a coincidence, or it can answer > the question mentioned in the 1st paragraph. If you mean STEP as in: http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/draft-savola-v6ops-conftun- setup-02.txt (because it has expired from the id-dir already) this primarly only defines the problem and mentions some of the various solutions that can be taken, but no final word is given on actually doing it, let alone any implementation. The appendices name a number of other protocols which actually do the work. IMHO it thus fills some gap between the other problem statements and solutions documents; While the real problem is more: who are you are trying to give connectivity, what do you have now and how would you like to do it. And there is no single solution for that problem, especially when considering that some ISP's want to use it as an upgrade path to native lines, without having to renumber their clients later on and of course with as less possible changes in their infrastructure. Custom solutions based on a number of predefined solutions is thus probably the answer, but a single solution, not IMHO ;) Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part