Subject: (ngtrans) NGtrans charter

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:48:24 -0800

NGtrans people,

Here is an updated charter that we, chairs, believe reflects our discussions
in SLC. We would like to circulate it in the mailing list before
we forward it to the IESG.

	- Alain, Tony, Bob.
--

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:14:34 -0500

> we forward it to the IESG.

Mumble.  I strongly believe that before we state a goal of advancing 
every existing transition mechanism to Draft Standard, we really need
to evaluate these mechanisms based on experience, trying to understand
the applicability of each.  In particular, we need to understand which
mechanisms are generally applicable, which have limited applicability, 
and which we are better off doing without.  We also need to better 
understand the interactions between these transition mechanisms.

There is a danger that we will have too many transition tools, 
and that when combined the tools will introduce so many ideosyncracies 
into the IPv6 environment that it is no better than IPv4.

Keith

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:25:03 -0800

> understand the interactions between these transition mechanisms.

thank you.

> There is a danger that we will have too many transition tools, and
> that when combined the tools will introduce so many ideosyncracies

no better?  v6 nats, v6/v4 nats, global anycast forwarders, bumps in the
hacks, stacks in the night, .......  no better than v4?  we wish.

in minneapolis, the backbone provider will be native v6 enabled.  think
about that.  if this becomes a trend, and having real v6 routers will
encourage this, what are the real v6 transition issues?  how simple and
stupid can we make this, not how clever?

randy