[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > (Yes, it's possible -- but there are some engineering tradeoffs!)
> > > DSTM
> > I'm not yet convinced of this. Especially I have huge doubts about
> > temporary address management scalability and robustness.
> There is not other mechanisms that treats IPv4 as DSTM does.
Well, but there could be. Personally I've toyed with an idea of writing
Dual Stack Tunneling Mechanism (DSTM) draft.
> Our job
> here is not to decide if temp addr mgmt is scalable the market will
> decide that. Our job here is to decide if the DSTM spec is functional.
> I could argue a lot of what we work on here is not scalable. That is
> not our job. The market and vendors won't use it if its not scalable.
I think our job is to provide properly engineered, technically sound
specifications. Specifications that don't have any known technical
issues, or at least ones that aren't clearly identified.
> As far as robust? What does that mean? Why would you call 6to4 robust?
> And define robust. What is robust to you may not be robust to my
> customers? And what I call robust may not be robust to your customers?
> Robust is to subjective we cannot state specs are robust or not in the
Sure, one cannot really define robust in general terms. For some it's one
thing, for others something else. But mechanisms that should be widely
deployed would use even more (and perhaps a tighter interpretation for
analyzing robustness) scrutiny.
> > And if it's necessary for a node to use it, 10, 100, 1000
> > times a day? Is
> > Ad-hoc really the best way to go?
> OK. But you have not provided one technical argument against DSTM nor
> has anyone else since the last draft-08 because the working group did
> their job and the authors did their job with updates.
Read my comments from 6 months back.
> All your arguments are a "gut" feeling against DSTM and
There are more, but gut feelings are part of it, yes. Is that a bad
thing. Did people have "technical arguments" against NAT? Gut feelings,
at least surely (I'm not saying DSTM == NAT, but to make a point: gut
feelings, intuition etc. do play a valid role).
> "your OPINION"
> of how IPv6 will be deployed.
Can anyone say anything else? It's all opinions, hopefully informed ones
> Hardly an argument to not move forward with DSTM. This is not a club or
> social group it is the Internet Engineering Task Force and DSTM
> performed that process and is being used as all the mechanisms above.
> Just because you don't like it is not a fair way to stop it from being
> move forward.
There are reasons I don't like it, and I'd like to see it changed so that
both operational procedures would be possible (with "core" procedure being
the simplest one).
> In fact if that happens it proves all I am beginning to
> dislike about the IETF processes of late.
You'd like the IETF take out the rubber stamp?
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords