Subject: Re: (ngtrans) DSTM Issues

From: Hossam Afifi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:24:44 +0200

Removing completly the 4  to 6 scenario makes DSTM simpler
 However, since it is useful may be we could make it optional?

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:46:17 -0400

We should take it out of the draft completely for now to
get something very **simple** to this working group.  

DSTM should focus on a mechanism that provides a solution for the market
for the next three years given the following caveats:

  1. The site has some IPv4 Global addresses for outgoing 
     communications for IPv6 nodes that want to communicate
     with IPv4 App Server nodes on the outside Internet.

  2. The site has some IPv4 Global addresses to permit
     tunneling its IPv6 needs across a predominantly IPv4
     Internet to a sister IPv6 Internet in addition to
     6to4 methods.  Giving another choice.

Providing a solution that does not require NAT for outgoing
communications over the Internet or on an Intranet is the reason
DSTM is unique in its solutions.

Lets do something very simple, all can understand, will work, 
and will be of benefit to IPv6 Transition.

Then we take on the harder problems that will face us for sure in 
the future.  For example once I am clear IPv6 Mobile is a done deal on
IPng and Mobile groups then I will propose a way to use the bindings to
really update tcp/udp packet src or dst addresses on the fly, but do
send that out to the IETF now is 1) not necessary for Ipv6 deployment
for at least 3 years, 2) its a baby step after Ipv6 Mobile and most
likely the multihome discussion.

Steve Deerings note on IPng per the multihome discussions, changed my 
whole view here of specs for IPv6.  Right now we have enough specs to 
deploy IPv6 and get it running at real customer sites.  We now must work 
on IPv6 like we work on IPv4.  Enhancing and making it better, and in this 
working group evolving new tools and mechanisms to help deploy IPv6 as it 
evolves.

Baby steps are good, long leap steps are bad and we could step in cow
dung enroute, and be sitting here this time next year with not more
clarity or WG consensus and no draft that folks will buy into.  Not a 
place I want to be, and I am sure you either.

/jim