Re: RV: I-D ACTION:draft-baker-v6ops-end2end-00.txt

[shogunx <shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx>]

Fred,

Why tunnel v over v6?

Scott


On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Clue accepted ;-)
>
> A new document has been submitted (attached for those that want to start
> commenting already).
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
> > De: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> > Responder a: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > Fecha: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:47:02 -0700
> > Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> > CC: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > Asunto: Re: RV: I-D ACTION:draft-baker-v6ops-end2end-00.txt
> >
> > On Aug 15, 2005, at 2:25 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >> Overall, agree with your conclusions about 3.3, but I think there
> >> is one more scenario, which is the one that we are facing, and
> >> seems to me the right way to go, actually the natural one, being
> >> deployed with some of our customers.
> >>
> >>       ,---.                                                  ,---.
> >>      /     \                                                /     \
> >>     /       \                                              /       \
> >>    ; IPv4+6  :                                            ; IPv4+6  :
> >>    | Network |                                            | Network |
> >>    :      +----+---.        ,---.       ,---.       ,---+----+      ;
> >>     \     |GW-A|    \      /     \     /     \     /    |GW-D|     /
> >>      \    +----+     +----+       \   /      +----+     +----+    /
> >>       `---' ;  IPv6  |GW-B| IPv4   : ;  IPv4 |GW-C| IPv6   : `---'
> >>             | Network+----+   +    | |    +  +----+Network |
> >>       ,---. :Transition  :  IPv6   : :  IPv6  ,---.
> >>      /     +----+A   /    \   B   /   \   C   /   \   D+----+     \
> >>     /      |GW-A|   /      \     /     \     /     \   |GW-D|      \
> >>    ; IPv4+6+----+--'        `---'       `---'       `--+----+IPv4+6 :
> >>    | Network |                                            | Network |
> >>    :         ;                                            :         ;
> >>     \       /                                              \       /
> >>      \     /                                                \     /
> >>       `---'                                                  `---'
> >>
> >> Network A and D are IPv6-only, with GW-A and GW-B taking care of
> >> the v4-in-v6 tunneling, automatically.
> >
> > There are certainly cases in which a consistent transition strategy
> > is being followed and is working. I think I said something in the
> > document about granting that the use of a single consistent strategy
> > that works will probably work :^).
> >
> > What I am concerned about is the proliferation of inconsistent
> > strategies, and the set of cases I can come up with in which they do
> > not work. That is the issue I am trying to raise.
> >
> >> One more comment. I've discovered a lot of confusion in several
> >> documents regarding 6over4 and 6in4, which is being followed by
> >> confusing documents from vendors. I think is very important to make
> >> a general recommendation, may be not just to this WG, but in
> >> general to all the IETF documents which mention tunneling, to
> >> clearly make a distinction between both mechanisms, probably
> >> avoiding using "over" when actually is referring 6in4
> >> encapsulation. Not sure if this should be raised at IESG level or
> >> whatever. What do you think ?
> >
> > What you expect clue? :^)
> >
> > Yes, it would be good if people would say clueful things in a clueful
> > way. There is probably room for an internet draft on the subject.
> >
>
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/