Subject: RE: DSTM

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:30:31 +0900 (JST)

> > > Some enterprises will not want 2002:: or any hard coded prefix in 
> > > their sites network addresses only IPv6 aggregatable 
> > address prefixes 
> > > assigned to the site.  Transition will use IPv6 or IPv4 
> > addresses not 
> > > Transition prefixes and DSTM supports that operational model.
> > 
> > 	transition technology other than DSTM can support the operational
> > 	model.  so my question is, why DSTM is given special treatment here?
> 
> DSTM is not asking for special treatment here and I don't understand why
> you say that can you please provide more context why you use the phrase
> "special treatment"?  Thanks.

	i was under impression that you're asking DSTM to be published without
	wait finishing scenario/analysis document, or if DSTM being mentioned 
	in the documents.  is my impression incorrrect?

itojun

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:27:37 -0400

Imagine an IPv6 production network made up of multiple links.  Only some
of the links contain legacy IPv4 applications and for this conversation
lets say they are servers.  The users policy is that IPv6 traffic is
only permitted on the majority of links and on all mission critical
links.  DSTM permits providing temporary addresses to nodes that are
required to communicate with legacy IPv4 nodes and networks by tunneling
the packet to a router that can then decap and forward IPv4 packets and
also receive them and encap them in IPv6 back to the orginating node.

Operational requirements by the user:

1.  IPv4 is not permitted to be routed on most IPv6 links or sites thus
tunneling IPv4 in IPv6 is the only option.

2.  Any address IPv6 or IPv4 must be within those assigned to the site
by operations, and all IPv6 addresses must be of the aggregate assigned
by IPv6 for any node.  This eliminates 6to4 and Teredo as two examples. 

3.  The use of IPv4 addresses for legacy communications should be
temporary IPv4 addresses for a specific time.

The objective is to use IPv6 as the dominant protocol and treat IPv4 as
legacy completely.

What other mechanism do this?

This is the strategy now by several large entities doing pre-production
network pilots and DSTM has been called out as required.  The technical
and business reasons for this operational model are not topics of the
IETF.  It is simply a requirement today as others for IPv6 deployment.

Regards,
/jim

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:22:28 +0900 (JST)

> 	in the documents.  is my impression incorrrect?

	i stand corrrected.  Teredo is receiving special treatment from chairs
	and Jim is upset about it, and asking for the same treatment as Teredo.

	i think neither Teredo nor DSTM should receive special treatment,
	they have to wait till analysis/scenario finishes.  otherwise, it's
	unfair to promote a/some mechanism picked by chairs.

	and chairs has to spell out why they thought Teredo is special.
	(even if the special treatment is withdrawn)

itojun

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:06:12 +0300 (EEST)

> Operational requirements by the user:
[...]
> temporary IPv4 addresses for a specific time.

I'm not sure I personally buy the other requirements, but for the 
argument's sake..

What kind of requirement is this?  How is this different for a 
site currently deploying v4?

In other words: if we need IPv4-in-IPv6 tunneling, let's discuss that.  
If we need something more than the existing IPv4 mechanisms for making
the v4 addresses used over such tunnels more dynamic (e.g., if DHCPv4
with short leases is not enough), let's discuss that separately as
well.  But let's not get these two features mixed up, having to
sacrifice a baby to get the bathwater :)

I have the impression that a lot of people have "IPv6-in-IPv4 == DSTM"  
in their head.  I want to break that assumption, as DSTM seems to
offer a lot more than that, because specifying a solution without
clearly defining its components seems unwise.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:06:50 +0200

=> one advantage of DSTM is you no more need to manage an IPv4
infrastructure (no IPv4 routers, etc). And of course all features
provided in your IPv6 are inherited.

=> the whole is more than the addition of all parts.

=> IPv4-over-IPv6 == DSTM ?

=> I agree. To come back to the real point IMHO this is like to
make the same for DHCPv4 itself: DHCPv4 can allocate temporary addresses
for a specific time but it can do more (BTW not only DSTM can use the
same mechanisms than DHCPv4 but my old implementation of DSTM exactly
reuse the code of a well known open source DHCPv4 server :-).

Thanks

[email-masked]