Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Shipworm obfuscation

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:48:36 -0700

Michael Cole wrote:
 > It would also make a unified
 > Shipworm+Isatap+6to4+6over4 box easier to implement.
                        ^^^^^^
I'm glad you mentioned this, because 6over4 seems to be getting lost in
the shuffle here as we discuss other mechanisms. I agree that a unified
solution is what we're after, but I would rearrange your grouping above
somewhat differently as follows:

   unified_solution = (6to4 + (teredo + isatap + 6over4))

Since 6to4 provides the global solution and the other mechanisms contribute
various aspects to the local solution, the "unification" really only needs to
occur among the components in the inner parentheses. I am all for unification,
but have sensed some resistence in others; perhaps the only bone of contention
is what to call the unified thing?

I have an idea: why don't we just do a (bis) on RFC 2529 and merge the
necessary features from teredo and isatap in with the existing features
of 6over4?  Then, just as it was in the old days:

   unified_solution = (6to4 + 6over4)

If this would make everyone happy, then maybe we can finally work together
on the details of the unification in a spirit of cooperation.

Comments?

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:24:53 -0700

> on the details of the unification in a spirit of cooperation.

Frankly, I don't see the point. Teredo has a different deployment scope
than ISATAP, and 6over4 is essentially dead, superceded by either 6to4
or ISATAP. Before any technology development, we need to understand the
scenarios that you want to enable, etc. 

-- Christian Huitema