RE: [RAM] Request to advance RFC4214 to Proposed Standard

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

> > but please note that this work (as well as ISATAP itself) derived
> > from an earlier work titled: "Virtual Ethernet".
> 
> If that means 6over4 a.k.a. RFC 2529,

Yes, I am meaning to include RFC2529 but also the Virtual Ethernet
project that came from a research lab which (I think) pre-dated
6over4. Both RFC2529 and the research work are cited in RFC4214. 

> I'll observe that that work went to PS eight years ago,

Good case in point.

> but has not made it into the real world
> despite a couple of successful implementations at the time - largely
> because it depends on deployment of IPv4 multicast. iirc, the original
> motivation for ISATAP was to provide an NBMA replacement for that
> multicast requirement.

Yes.

> Is that still an accurate characterization?

For the most part, yes; but we are also beginning to see
native multicasting capabilities emerging for MANETs so I
do not mean to preclude the possibility of benefitting
from such.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com  
 
>      Brian
> 
> (Fred & Kurtis - pls excuse this discussion continuing. While 
> the question
> may be out of charter, I think the parties with interest and 
> experience
> are all here.)
>