Subject: Re: [Softwires] reworded charter

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:18:52 +0100

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:25:52AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> This is a significant improvement, thanks.
> 
> I still have two issues with it:
> 
>  1) the lack of a problem statement prior to chartering.  
> 
>  2) the "(or network edge)" seems troubling to me, because I don't see
> the requirement for this protocol in such case.  

Hi,

I won't be at the interim meeting (busy here with first week of academic
year) but here are some thoughts on the thread/charter to date.

I agree a problem statement is welcome, but I think part of the issue at
hand is to progress a (single?) standard solution quickly.  Too much
navel gazing will impair this.

Personally I don't see the need for 'big carrier' tunnels, but I accept
there may be some demand from some carriers for this.   I would prefer
to keep the scope 'customer' to 'ISP edge', as Pekka I think proposed.
In that light, I think we're more in intra rather than inter ISP space,
and I think I agree with what Thomas said there.

Regarding discovery, I agree with Jordi that this can be discussed in
parallel.  We have examples of existing I-Ds in this space, e.g. TEP for
DHCP, so where do these get taken on?  DHC? ipv6? v6ops? softwires?
Sure the problem is largely orthogonal, but for a deployable solution
quickly, we should discuss sooner not later?

Reagrding 'ISP internal usage' as Pekka asked, it depends what you mean
by 'ISP' - in the UK academic case, the JANET backbone maintained by
UKERNA is dual-stack, but regional and university/campus networks have
variable IPv6 deployments (mainly none), so UKERNA supports a broker
service for its users.   They can also use this while on their home 
networks (where ideally their DSL ISP would offer IPv6 natively or at
least a broker service).

I think the IPv4-in-IPv6 case is important.  Yes, I do think the scenario
that DSTM addresses is important, not widely at this stage but it should
be included.   I agree Pekka had lots of interesting questions on DSTM,
e.g. how 'on demand' tunnels may be created and torn down, but DSTM uses
TSP, and it seems to me that TSP should very much be a focus of softwires 
as it stands.   The work done to date on DSTM can be useful in formulating
the 4-in-6 solution in softwires - there are I-Ds and implementations that
can be 'critiqued' (as Pekka has :).

I assume the softwires BoF in Vancouver (on the agenda) will have time
to digest the interim meeting minutes before it meets - would be very
useful.

--
Tim

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

---

From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:24:10 -0400

> can be 'critiqued' (as Pekka has :).

Tim,
 
Set aside the discussion on 6 in 4 or 4 in 6, do you think softwires should support dynamic tunnels
(i.e. tunnels that are set up on a connection basis) or should we be fine with a more static
approach where tunnels are set up for typically a much longer time?
 
   - Alain.

---

From: Mark Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:37:49 +0100

Alain,

Is there a particular reason we can't have both types (or am 
I missing something here) ?

Mark

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:24:10 -0400
>From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>  
>Subject: RE: [Softwires] reworded charter  
>To: "Tim Chown" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>