Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Re: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:39:42 -0400

>
>
>What all this means is, we probably need to rewrite some parts of the SIIT 
>specification. In fact, we probably need to write a single document that 
>supercedes both SIIT and NAT-PT.

This is where I would like to see us go...

Is there some way that we could combine the best qualities of SIIT, NAT-PT
and NAT64/46 into a single mechanism?  Or is there really more than one
distinct set of needs?  Do we have a group of people with expertise in this
area who are willing to get together and try this?

I'd like to do the same thing in the tunneling space -- we have, depending
on how you count, up to 7 different mechanisms for tunneling IPv6 in
IPv4 in various ways...  Can we figure out what is really needed and
trim down our set of mechanisms to match?  Who would be interested in
working on this?

I'd also like us to think very hard about how we expect nodes that implement
multiple transition mechanisms to choose between them.  In particular, I'd
like us to make sure that transition mechanisms are not used/enabled when
a node has global IPv6 connectivity.  I don't think it is good enough to
sweep this problem under the rug of address selection rules.  Part
of our solution may involve a reasonable default set of address selection
rules, but I'd prefer a solution where special addresses are not
created/used when global addresses are available.

Margaret

---

From: Senthil Sivakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:49:23 -0700 (PDT)

> area who are willing to get together and try this?
I voluteer to be a part of this effort, we had to read the two documents
(NAT-PT and SIIT) back and forth during our implementation, I would prefer
to have a single document.

Senthil

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 01:38:34 -0700

On Sunday, September 22, 2002, at 05:39 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>
>>
>>
>> What all this means is, we probably need to rewrite some parts of the 
>> SIIT specification. In fact, we probably need to write a single 
>> document that supercedes both SIIT and NAT-PT.
>

At least two of the scenario design teams are now looking
at solutions in that space, so trying to combine SIIT/NAT-PT/NAT-64-46
is IMHO a step in the right direction, and I volunteer to work there.

> trim down our set of mechanisms to match?  Who would be interested in

That one is less clear to me...
I understand three different categories there:
	- basic configured tunnels,
	- the various flavor of automatic tunnels
	- some NAT traversial tunneling

Only an in-depth analysis of the scenario documents
will tell what is useful/necessary or not.

> created/used when global addresses are available.

This is really implementation dependent. However, I agree that some 
'common sense' rules
could be described in an Info RFC.

	- Alain.