Subject: Zero-Configuration Tunneling

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 01:21:15 +0100

Hi all,

While working on
http://www.v6ops.euro6ix.net/ietf/draft-suryanarayanan-v6ops-zeroconf-reqs-0
1.txt

I¹ve some disagreement with some of the co-authors.

The point was that in my opinion, the extensibility to support other
tunneling protocols is a must. For instance, in addition to support NAT
traversal, I will like to see in the solution also support for 4in6 and
6in6.

The question is, in your opinion this extensibility should be a ³must², a
³should² or a ³may² ?

What is the opinion of the rest of the WG ?

Regards,
Jordi

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.