Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

Note: v6ops bcc'ed, followups in v6tc please.

> First of all, I think is a very good question to know if the v6tc is really
> dead, or what, unless I've missed something, there was not any message about
> this. I was about to ask soon in v6tc list (copied now).

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure myself. And this is after a rather
lot of hallway conversation in Minneapolis.

Truth in advertising: I've always been a bit skeptical of this work,
and probably continue to be, with the main reason being that I do not
see a clear/easy/obvious solution here and I worried alot (while I
still wore an AD hat) about starting a WG that wouldn't be able to
actually come to closure and complete useful work. It is not enough to
want a solution -- a solution must also be achievable. (This comment
applies mostly the "tunnel endpoint discovery problem".)

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.

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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc