Re: Enterprise Analysis DSTM Issue

[Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:01:30PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:48:22PM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
> 
> > Regarding DSTM it does assume a dual stack on all nodes and states that
> > clearly in the spec and supports IPv6 - in - IPv6 tunneling RFC should
> > be used.  It is only the IPv4 routing within the DSTM domain that will
> > not be used and this was an idea supported by the market and that is
> > input at least to those of us that will drive and assist the market to
> > use DSTM as an IPv6 Transiton mechanism.  To state DSTM does not support
> > a dual-stack method is not valid based on the DSTM spec.
> 
> One option may be to title it 'Dual Stack (Host) Transition Mechanism' to
> distinguish it from 'conventional' dual stack where dual stack on the
> wire is used (and nodes may be v4 only, v6 only or both).

Yes that might be an idea. Not to be difficult, but a router and, thus a
network of routers, can easily forward IPv6 without having a TCP/IP stack,
so strictly speaking we're misusing the term dual-stack a little bit when
we talk of dual-stack networks too (: Anyway, it's how people use it that
is important, and it's become common to talk of dual-stack networks.

> I think enough people know what DSTM is as to not change the acronym.

Right, might be confusing to change the name again (or go back to the
AIIH name...). I don't care that much about the name though. There are
some people deploying IPv6-only networks today, and I'm sure there will
be more in the future. So I do see the need for IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling.

Stig

> 
> Tim