Subject: Re: [Softwires] Re: WG LC Problem Statement (Pekka Savola Comments)

From: Florent Parent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:11:18 -0500

--On 6 janvier 2006 10:44:50 -0600 David Ward <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Jordi -
>
> Since the main goal of finding our first solution is to include TTM as a
> heavily weighted variable, it is still not reasonable to place a strict
> requirement for auto-detection when deployments are not mandating it.
> Whether the issue is header overhead, keepalives, etc it is clearly
> acceptable today. For the first phase solution we agreed that we had to
> "chuck" out the verbiage that Laurent is mentioning of strict "setup
> overhead" requirements because for the first phase, it isn't necessary. To
> that end, things we would like (and I agree w/ the _desire_ to include
> auto-detection) and things we must have, have to be separated due to the
> pragmatics of TTM.

With respect to the "time to market", note that IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnelling 
support is available basically everywhere IPv6 is implemented.

> My suggestion of "MUST be able to traverse NAT ...
> SHOULD|would-be-nice-to be able to auto-negotiate..." is still the
> recommended verbiage given the meta-goals we have given ourselves.

I'm fine with this. I assume that both "over-UDP" and IPv6-in-IPv4 are 
still on the critical path?

Florent

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

---

From: David Ward <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:08:41 -0600

Florent -

On 1/9/06 9:11 AM, "Florent Parent" <[email-masked]> wrote:
...snip...

> still on the critical path?

DW: Yes.