From: Bound, Jim (Jim.Bound_at_no.spam)
Date: Mon Mar 18 2002 - 23:07:47 PST
exactly. Thats what DSTM is all about. DSTM will be deployed and updated and updated. It is golden to reduce the NAT proliferation of IPv6 to use IPv4.
I will be writing a white paper on DSTM over the next few months and its deployment scenario to support those that will use DSTM in the market. Will send it here when its done.
The question now is what extensions to DSTM are useful? I think we should not drop the extensions for 6to4 either.
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myung-Ki Shin [mailto:mkshin-at-pec.etri.re.kr]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:46 PM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: Francis Dupont; Alain Durand; Yasevich, Vladislav; NGtrans List
> Subject: Re: DSTM-ports Considered Harmful [Re: (ngtrans)
> final ngtransagendaforIETF-53 in Minneapolis]
>
>
>
> Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if that's a goal of DSTM: the goal of DSTM is
> to be able to
> > run IPv6-only network infrastructure with dual-stack nodes.
> >
> > Sure, getting end-2-end IPv4 is always a plus, but nothing
> specific to
> > DSTM. And there should be some use for IPv6 too ;-)
>
> No, see the section 3. DSTM Overview and Assumptions in DSTM spec.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-dstm-07.txt
>
> ====
> The core assumption within this mechanism is that it is totally
> transparent to applications, which can continue to work with IPv4
> addresses. It is also transparent to the network, where only IPv6
> packets are carried. It is the authors' viewpoint that the user, in
> this case, has deployed IPv6 to support end to end
> computing without
> translation. This aspect is fundamental during a
> transition process
> to guarantee that every existing application will continue to work
> (e.g. IPsec, H.323), despite the presence of IPv4 addresses in the
> payload of a packet.
>
>
> Myung-Ki.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 00:00:31 PDT