RE: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

[<michael.dillon () bt com>]

> Before someone starts it, the debate between transition 
> protocols to use is well and truely over. Teredo and 6to4 
> have been chosen for use by the software vendors of the end 
> systems. (fine by me)

This is misleading. You are using IPv6 jargon (transition protocol)
whose meaning is not obvious. For most ISPs, "transition" refers to the
entire series of steps up to running a ubiquitous IPv6 network where
IPv4 is a legacy support service. In that sense, Teredo and 6to4 are not
magic bullets because they merely deal with the first steps of such a
transition.

I do agree that Teredo and 6to4 are very important right now, as far as
taking actions, but for planning, we need to look well beyond IPv6
transition protocols.

Since we are all collectively playing catchup at this point, it would be
very useful for some clear guidance on who needs to deploy Teredo and
6to4 and where it needs to be deployed. Also, the benefits of deployment
versus the problems caused by not having it. Should this be in every PoP
or just somewhere on your network? Are there things that can be measured
to tell you whether or not lack of Teredo/6to4 is causing user problems?

--Michael Dillon