Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

> I think I basically agree with your email, but disagree regarding the TEP
> discovery.

What I meant here is that it can be a good thing as you said, but it is 
not something absolutely required for an ISP to have a working solution.
So when discussing forming the WG or not, I think TEP discovery should 
not be taken as a reason for not creating TC as we can anyway achieve 
good results without it.

Hope this clarifies :)

Jerome

> The reason for that is that within an ISP is easy, but if you're a user
> moving (traveling), you need to be able to discover it, not ask for a manual
> configuration. Example, I don't want to manually change my configuration at
> every hotel where a different ISP provides either via wired or wireless
> access.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>De: Jerome Durand <jdurand@renater.fr>
>>Responder a: <jdurand@renater.fr>
>>Fecha: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:55:54 +0200
>>Para: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
>>CC: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, "v6tc@ietf.org" <v6tc@ietf.org>
>>Asunto: Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts
>>
>>
>>>I do detect that there are folk that want to form a WG and that there
>>>are some that believe there is a problem here to be solved (that needs
>>>solving), but so far (AFAIK) the problem hasn't been articulated
>>>clearly and (still) strikes me as a bit of a moving target.
>>
>>The problem that was explained is how an ISP gives easily connectivity
>>to its customers, waiting for access networks/equipments/technologies to
>>be upgraded. I think this is a good problem that needs to be solved
>>(talking here as an ISP)
>>
>>Now I guess what is important to get is that we need something quickly,
>>or new equipments will come before we have adopted anything. One could
>>argue we can wait 5 more years and don't bother much. This is not what
>>we did and we (as other ISPs) started to buy some commercial tools
>>(tunnel brokers) fulfilling all our requirements (low latency is not a
>>requirement for us). Tunnel discovery is not a problem for an ISP that
>>doesn't care much  giving a TEP IP address to its customers (or
>>preconfiguring the tunnel broker client). Then I can't understand that
>>this could be a stopper for not making the group.
>>
>>The point here is that as an ISP, I'd prefer to work with a standard,
>>manageable and available solution. Is one already available? If yes that
>>is worth documenting how to use/deploy it (in v6ops WG). If not, then we
>>have to adopt a new standard (in v6tc as v6ops is not made for it).
>>
>>Jerome
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>One (big!) example. There was lots of talk at the BOF and in the
>>>presentation about the need for low latency, i.e., it was a
>>>"requirement". And I hear "wireless" mentioned and "3G" at
>>>approximately the same time. But, my understanding is that 3GPP has
>>>already decided to go with ISATAP. So, they aren't a customer for this
>>>work. But if that is the case, where is the real requirement for low
>>>latency coming from?
>>>
>>>Is my understanding correct in this regard?
>>>
>>>Thomas
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>v6tc mailing list
>>>v6tc@ietf.org
>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************
> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
> Registration open. Information available at:
> http://www.ipv6-es.com
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6tc mailing list
> v6tc@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc

_______________________________________________
v6tc mailing list
v6tc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc