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

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:10:23 -0400 (EDT)

> So what would be aggressive enough, given that defining a timeline
> is clearly impossible?

something like
  This mechanism has significant scaling issues particularly in regards to
  the growth of the routing table.  It is meant to be a temporary, stop-gap
  mechanism to provide IPv6 connectivity until such a time when native-mode
  IPv6 connectivity is commonly provided by ISPs.  Users must assume that
  they will have to migrate to native IPv6 prefixes when this is the case.

scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:35:10 -0500

Scott Bradner wrote:
>   the growth of the routing table.  

But this is not really the case. Basic 6to4 adds one entry, 2002::/16, to the 
native IPv6 routing table. There are scaling issues for massive numbers of tiny 
sites- covered by Tony's draft - and I do need to add a statement that the base
document does not cover that situation. (Tony's draft wasn't out when
this -06 draft was done.) So I agree that scaling should be mentioned but the
words will be a bit different.

>   It is meant to be a temporary, stop-gap

I agree of course with "temporary." I object to "stop-gap", it's pejorative.
How about "start-up"?

>   they will have to migrate to native IPv6 prefixes when this is the case.

Correct. In fact the only requirement is that your *own* ISP has native
support, so it's a bit stronger.

Thanks

  Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:53:56 -0400

I don't see how that's true.  As currently defined the mechanism uses at
most one IPv6 routing table entry.

Keith