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

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:54:57 +0200

Clue accepted ;-)

A new document has been submitted (attached for those that want to start
commenting already).

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:47:02 -0700
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> 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.
>

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:42:41 -0400 (EDT)

that should read "v4 over v6"

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

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:41:45 -0400 (EDT)

Fred,

Why tunnel v over v6?

Scott

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 05:34:07 -0700

if you have a v6-only domain - and these already exist - and you want  
v4 to run over it, that's you're only option.

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:27:47 -0400 (EDT)

> v4 to run over it, that's you're only option.

so if i want to provide ipv4 service to my wireless network, currently
v6 only, unless you call "v4 NAT" v4 cnnectivity, which i don't because
the end to end is broken with NAT, i place a v4inv6 tunnel in my v6inv4
tunnel (nasty for latency, since both of my v6 tunnels travel some 2000+
miles before terminating at the tunnel brokers) and i'm still left with
the same problem that led me to NAT and number (and multihome) with v6 in
the first place:  i was too young to get a v4 allocation when they were
free, don't have barrels of cash laying around to get a proper v4
allocation, and those v4 addresses retail for around $10/each per month
these days.

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:42:41 -0400 (EDT)

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 05:34:07 -0700

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:41:45 -0400 (EDT)

Fred,

Why tunnel v over v6?

Scott

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:54:57 +0200

Clue accepted ;-)

Regards,
Jordi