[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
We are not removing DSTM from this spec all the authors know for a fact
it is important to operators. If you want further applicability
statements we can do that and there is other work in progress.
Thanks for you input,
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 3:47 PM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
>
> Hi,
>
> (I'll put two most separable & possibly most discussable items in
> separate mails.)
>
> In 8.1:
>
> Later in the transition process, after the enterprise has
> transitioned to a predominately IPv6 infrastructure, the architect
> should implement the Dual-IP Transition Mechanism [DSTM, DSTM+]. Or
> in the case of early deployment of IPv6-dominant networks DSTM can
> be used too.
>
> and in 8.4:
>
> DSTM [DSTM, DSTM+] is a useful tunneling mechanism for later in the
> enterprise transition or deployment of IPv6-dominant network links
> is desired. DSTM is to being submitted as an IETF Experimental RFC.
>
> ==> as it is, DSTM is a way too overloaded a mechanism to be
> referred to
> without more disclaimers or description. As it is, different
> people use
> "DSTM" to mean at least the following things:
> a) v4-in-v6 tunnels
> b) automatically set-up v4-in-v6 tunnels
> c) automatic set up of v4-in-v6 tunnels when the host
> doesn't have v4 address and an app wants to create a v4 socket
> d) automatic monitoring and tear-down of said v4-over-v6 tunnel
> when the host detects it no longer needs the address/connectivity
> e) plus a number of extensions for even more colorful setups.
>
> a) doesn't require DSTM; b) can be achieved using a tunnel broker; c)
> does not require IETF interoperability (a local implementation choice
> when/how to launch the v4-in-v6 activation). d) could also
> be considered in
> the same category (there are no bits in the wire or anything requiring
> interoperability AFAICS on when the host removes the tunnel),
> though I'm
> skeptical whether even providing that would be a good
> engineering choice.
>
> My point is that I'm having hard time figuring out:
> 1) what the document means when it's recommending DSTM, and
> 2) based on my analysis above, I do not believe that DSTM
> (in the way that
> I think it's being referred to) is even needed.
>
> Therefore my suggestion is to remove references to DSTM
> (preferable) or
> greatly clarify the assumptions and the requirements on why it should
> be necessary. (On the other hand, if the DSTM spec only described the
> algorithms for doing c) and d) above in my list, I would have
> a lot fewer
> concerns -- but as it is, I believe a reference would confuse
> more than
> help.)
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>