From: Christian Huitema (huitema_at_no.spam)
Date: Tue Mar 19 2002 - 10:44:41 PST
> On a deployment viewpoint, a MS implementation would be very useful,
> given we have good v6 app support in Linux and BSD. Can any of the
MS
> people comment on their own plans here?
I am personally not convinced of the urgency of implementing and
deploying DSTM. The stated goal of DSTM is to let users of an IPv6 only
network gain IPv4 connectivity. Think about it: IPv6 only networks. Does
not look like a year 2002 problem to me. I would rather concentrate on
making sure that users in an IPv4 only network can get some IPv6
connectivity.
I am also not convinced that DSTM is the right solution to the stated
problem. It goes to great length to assure that the IPv6 only nodes can
get a global IPv4 address, but it is very unclear that we will have
enough available IPv4 addresses to allow that. DSTM attempts to reduce
IPv4 address consumption by "time sharing" the address, but we have
experience and theory that tells us that time sharing does not work
well: in short, all nodes tend to need addresses at the same time.
If you remove the "global address" property, then DSTM is in fact an
inferior solution, compared to NAT-PT (provided we remove the DNS ALG
from NAT-PT.) At least, with NAT-PT, I don't even need an IPv4 stack in
the IPv6 only nodes, and I also don't need any address allocation
protocol between the v6 only node and the server.
-- Christian Huitema
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 00:00:31 PDT