Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Re: draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-06.txt

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:57:34 -0700

Francis Dupont writes:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    > home users (because of the dynamic IPv4 address).
>    
>    I'm a home user with a dynamic IPv4 address, and it works just fine
>    for me.
> 
> => is your 6to4 prefix changing with your dynamic IPv4 address?

Yep.

> I think most users would like to get a *static* IPv6 prefix...

I think most users (especially home users) shouldn't have to know 
the difference or care.

-Dave

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:08:52 -0400

> I think most users (especially home users) shouldn't have to know

I don't think that is likely.  There will always be more things you
can do with a static prefix than with a dynamic one. 

Keith

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:23:38 +0200

=> they have to know and care... Unfortunately today they don't know
then even they care they cannot do something: we (IPv6 people) have
to educate them and show to them the difference between the Internet
and an on-line service (or here in France "the Internet is not a
super Minitel). I believe this is an important point for IPv6 success...

About 6to4, I'd like to get in the applicability statement something
like "if the embedded IPv4 address changes (<home user example>) then the
6to4 prefix will change".

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS: I don't know how to educate home users. Many of them seem to be
really unsatisfied by Linux masquerade or other instances of NAT...
but how to explain why/how IPv6 is a better solution for them.
ISPs wouldn't like to give to them the possibility to run their own
servers (dynamic IPv4 addresses are not only for technical reasons :-).

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:24:23 +0200

Thanks

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:24:09 +0200

Thanks

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:42:07 +0200

=> I agree but I believe a large fraction of home users don't know how
to get a static prefix (*). Today they get by default with most of ISPs
a single dynamic IPv4 address and they have to give money for a static
address (up to 50USD/month) and more for a very small prefix...

PS (*): to get a static prefix at a reasonable price.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:09:52 -0500

Francis Dupont wrote:
...
> 6to4 prefix will change".

The base 6to4 proposal isn't aimed at home users. This remark is relevant
to Tony's draft, but that is not what we are trying to get published
right now.

  Brian

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:41:54 +0200

Francis Dupont wrote:
   ...
   > 6to4 prefix will change".
   
   The base 6to4 proposal isn't aimed at home users.

=> we agree but this is not in the current draft...

   This remark is relevant to Tony's draft, but that is not what we
   are trying to get published right now.
   
=> I don't know exactly Randy means by a note or an applicability statement
but IMHO this will be useful and should be in a 6to4 related document
(Tony's is fine for me if we can assume it will be published soon).

Thanks

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:05:55 -0400

> but how to explain why/how IPv6 is a better solution for them.

people figure these things out.  the more sophisticated users figure
out how to exploit the better technology, and then they educate the
less sophisticated ones.  the average home user may not understand
why IPv6 is better, but someone will tell him that if he gets 6to4 
installed on his PC then he can run this cool new distributed game ..
so he'll do it.  either that or the distributed game will come with
the 6to4 code bundled in, and they'll get installed at the same time.

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:13:10 -0500

I would rather that the base document defines its own applicability;
Tony's is an extension to the base concept. I thought that the base
document was already pretty clear on its scope, that's why I'm
asking for help on the words that need to be added. It's true that with
the publication of Tony's draft, I should add that the issue
of massive scaling to tiny sites is not covered by the base document

   Brian