Subject: Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:46:36 -0700

Tony,

Tony Hain wrote:
 > Fred,
 >
 > There is nothing here that a well implemented stack that included
 > isatap, 6to4, & teredo wouldn't provide. If the sending rules are
 > followed, your nomad node would in fact work fine without further
 > effort. If that node wanted to be called, it would need to use mipv6
 > anyway, because its ipv4 address would be changing as it moved. So
 > putting that in the iid doesn't help the dns update problem. Finding a
 > provider for a home agent of a node that is only using transition
 > technologies would be a bit of a challenge, but there is no technical
 > reason for that to be a problem as long as the HA was accessable to it
 > over each of the technologies.
 >
 > Tony

Somehow, I was inferring a "glue" layer was needed to bind everything
together. But, your message makes me believe that won't be necessary
in well implemented stacks. Thanks for the comments,

Fred
[email-masked]

 >>-----Original Message-----
 >>From: [email-masked]
 >>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Fred L. Templin
 >>Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:48 AM
 >>To: [email-masked]
 >>Subject: Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
 >>
 >>
 >>Brian and Keith,
 >>
 >>Please don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting the reinvention
 >>of any wheels here (and I'm *certainly* not arguing in favor
 >>of sub-optimality). I guess what I'm doing is speculating as
 >>to whether a truly general-purpose transition mechanism is
 >>possible that would unite the functions of several existing
 >>mechanisms. Ideally, this could entail near-100% code reuse
 >>and would only require building simple links between existing
 >>modules so that the correct functionality is activated under
 >>the proper circumstances.
 >>
 >>By way of example, my laptop normally connects to my
 >>company's network which accesses the global IPv4 Internet via
 >>firewalls, proxies, etc. as for any corporate Intranet. If I
 >>were to enable a transition mechanism on my laptop while at
 >>work, I would probably choose isatap - and hope that the site
 >>has configured a 6to4/isatap router. But, suppose I wanted to
 >>take my laptop home and connect it to the NAT hub behind my
 >>DSL modem. In that case, I would clearly need to use teredo.
 >>Suppose I then wanted to take the laptop to an academic
 >>campus with open Internet access; i.e., no proxies, firewalls
 >>or NATs to traverse. In that case, host-based 6to4 would
 >>provide the optimal solution. (Example scenarios requiring
 >>other useful mechanisms, e.g., DSTM, configured tunnels,
 >>etc., could also be
 >>given.)
 >>
 >>I would think it highly unlikely that the average user would
 >>understand or even care about the subtleties of the various
 >>scenarios, which suggests to me that the decision point needs
 >>to be automated. I think this might be possible - especially
 >>if a unified addressing scheme were used that places local
 >>IPv4 unicast routing information in the interface identifier
 >>portion of the IPv6 address and global routing information
 >>(to possibly include global IPv4 routing information) in the
 >>routing prefix.
 >>
 >>Does the above give you a better idea of where I'm coming from?
 >>
 >>Fred
 >>[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 21:42:53 -0400

> effort. 

I don't believe for a millisecond that the sending rules will allow 
apps to cope with an arbitrary number of addresses or interfaces.

Address selection is the v6 way of saying "it's somebody else's problem".

that "somebody" is the application writer.

Keith