Re: Enterprise Analysis DSTM Issue

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Stig Venaas wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, but your last sentence was exactly my point.

You don't need the mechanism labeled as DSTM to do "IPv4 over IPv6 
tunneling".

If that's what we wanted, we could just say we need v4-over-v6 and be 
done.

As I said in my earliest mail, I think we now should get the people 
actually doing DSTM deployments or otherwise interested in it to state 
1) what they believe it does, and 2) what are their requirements for a 
solution in more generic terms?

Below is cut'n'pasted from my earlier mail:

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.

We need to separate "use of v4-in-v6 tunnels as a concept" from "DSTM 
the protocol".  Fleshing it out or removing it seem the only choices.

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