Subject: (ngtrans) shipworm discussion and last call

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:35:26 -0700

NGtrans Folk,

The chairs would like to move shipworm on to wg last call for PS as soon as 
possible, but are concerned about the lack of discussion on such an 
important topic. Therefore we would like to have one week of comment on 
shipworm then move any resulting changes to the draft on to last call.

Please send your comments to the ngtrans list.

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-01.txt>

Thanks,

Alain, Bob & Tony

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:57:41 +0900

>Please send your comments to the ngtrans list.

	there were a lot of comments, after London IETF, about possible
	security risks (mainly from Pekka).  should that be issued again?

itojun

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:38:57 -0500

> 5.9	When to use Shipworm?
> 
> Shipworm is designed to robustly enable IPv6 traffic through NAT, 
> and the price of robustness is a reasonable amount of overhead, due 
> to UDP encapsulation, transmission of bubbles, and relaying of 
> packets through the Shipworm servers. Nodes that want to connect to 
> the IPv6 Internet should only use the Shipworm service as a "last 
> resort" option: they should prefer using direct IPv6 connectivity if 
> it is locally available, and they should prefer using the less 
> onerous "6to4" encapsulation if they can use a global IPv4 address.

Actually the condition is a bit more subtle than the last sentence
indicates. I suggest

                     ...if they can use a a global IPv4 address,
 either because there is no NAT in place, or because the NAT is
 co-located with a 6to4 router.

[otherwise people might deduce that NAT requires Shipworm, which it
doesn't if the NAT box also handles 6to4]

   Brian