Subject: (ngtrans) W.G. Last Call on "Shipworm: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs"

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 06:38:11 -0700

This is an NGtrans working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as a Proposed Standard:

	Title		: Shipworm: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs
	Author(s)	: C. Huitema
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-02.txt
	Pages		: 25
	Date		: 27-Sep-01
	
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-02.txt>

<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-02.txt>

Please send substantive comments to the ngtrans mailing list, and minor
editorial comments to the author.  This last call period will end two
weeks from today on October 12, 2001.

Alain Durand / Bob Fink / Tony Hain

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:49:41 -0700

Note that the draft-02 does not incorporate the revision of section 5.9
suggested by Brian Carpenter. I intend to modify this section as follow:
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
or if it is provided by a 6to4 router co-located with the local NAT, and
they should prefer using the less onerous "6to4" encapsulation if they
can use a global IPv4 address. 
<<<<<<<<<<<<
The idea being to cross all the Is and dot all the Ts, when it come to
deployment.

-- Christian Huitema

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Fink [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 6:38 AM
> To: NGtrans List
> Subject: (ngtrans) W.G. Last Call on "Shipworm: Tunneling 
> IPv6 over UDP through NATs"
> 
>