Subject: Re: (ngtrans) "Bump-in-the API" idea

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:28:37 -0700 (PDT)

Jim, Keith, Brian, others,

	I think I agree that attempting to standardize any sort of BITS
facility whether it is between the network layer and the link layer or
between the application layer and the transport layer is not going to get
very far.  This sort of facility is 100% platform specific.  It is an
engineering/systems solution not a protocol solution.  IETF type standards
aren't really necessary when there are no interoperation considerations.  In
order for BITS to work their necessarily cannot be any interoperation con-
siderations.

	That said, I can see a lot of scenarios where certain applications
cannot be upgraded by the user for some reason, even if a newer version of
the application is available which does support IPv6.  Everyone that has
used computers for a while has been bitten by a catch-22 situation regarding
the incompatibility of various applications and the OS they run on.  A
BITS facility would be the only alternative for that user.  

	Since we are trying to provide transition solutions, I believe it
would be a mistake for us to damn or otherwise deprecate an engineering
solution which could provide relief for such a user.  The analogy to NATs is
a good one except that BITS of some form might actually work better.

Tim Hartrick

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 14:05:45 -0400

>a good one except that BITS of some form might actually work better.

I agree with you Tim.  Another issue if source code is not really
portable to IPv6 which I know of two cases now, but that app has to live
on until they can rewrite the software.  

I am not saying we should not discuss or dam BITS or any other solution.
If I gave that impression I should not have, nor mean't to.

But I would ask that we quantify, qualify, and whatever else we can do
as to its use, deployment, and where it is really helpful.  I would not
want to see a trend that promotes not porting to IPv6 cause we can rely
on BITS, and that is my real underlying issue. 

And thanks for the way you presented this it was really very good I
appreciate that.

/jim