RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Even better would be that this "box in the DMZ" terminates V4, and sends
> packets to the HA in IPv6. Say, doing some NAT-PT instead of tunneling,
> classical alternates.

Please, don't even consider translation.

You may be interested of the following:

"Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Experimental"
draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-00

AFAIK, that has just recently been forwarded to the IESG for 
processing.

> Seems to me that the line if thought that starts at your "box in the
> DMZ" ends up being With Doors.
>
> With Doors, the "box in the DMZ" is the Doors gateway between IPv4 and
> IPv6.

Doors does not solve the problem if the strict requirement is avoiding 
"extra" encapsulation, right?  (I may not buy that requirement myself, 
but we should at least get to consensus whether it's one or not.)

Doors is basically Yet Another v6-in-v4 Tunnelbroker (albeit 
stateless) Solution, AFAICS.  If we go down that path, maybe it would 
be worth using the already specified, implemented and deployed 
mechanisms, or create one ourselves (there was a Tunnel Configuration 
BOF at the last IETF.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings