Subject: Re: (ngtrans) wg last call for 6to4anycast-00.txt

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 02:47:56 -0800 (PST)

Keith,

As Tony's proposal is based on top of Christian's one,
I do not see any problem advencing Christian's anycast now.
This will not presume anything about the future of Tony's.

	= Alain.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 11:01:31 -0500

> This will not presume anything about the future of Tony's.

I have two questions about this:

- if Christian's proposal is advanced now, and Tony's later, 
  how much code will be shipped that implements "only" Christian's
  proposal?

- is the "just use an anycast address as a default route" approach,
  without doing ND/NR, acceptable from an operational point of view?
  or does this mean that an ISP has to deploy too many relay routers?

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:35:14 -0600

Keith,

Since Tony's draft layers on top of the anycast solution, I don't see
phased product versions as a problem.

I think the whole point is that if 6to4 is deployed massively, we
*will* need an awful lot of relay routers, so I don't really see
your "too many" issue. Basic 6to4 doesn't have the scaling issue
that Christian and Tony are trying to solve, and doesn't require
the anycast mechanism.

So my response to the last call is "yes".

   Brian