Subject: RE: [midcom] RE: Some comments on scenario draft

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:00:10 -0700

> From: Pyda Srisuresh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >
> What specifically are the new architectural issues and requirements
> (for MIDCOM) that came about as a result of illustrating the 6-to-4
> V6 transition mechanism or a V6-only network?

Requirement to handle v6 addresses in the midcom protocol;
Requirement to enable firewall traversal even if no mapping function is
performed (also applies to firewalled networks with global IPv4
addresses, which are not so rare.)
Requirement to enable traversal for other payload types than UDP and
TCP, two examples being protocol type 41, used for IPv6 tunnelling (6to4
and other), as well as AH and ESP.

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:13:49 -0700 (PDT)

> Requirement to handle v6 addresses in the midcom protocol;

Agreed. But, this is orthogonal to 6-to-4 transition mechanism.
An obvious requirement when the resources and sessions are V6 based.

> addresses, which are not so rare.)

Sorry, I dont understand this.
What is the mapping function you are refering to?

> and other), as well as AH and ESP.
Support for protocols other than TCP and UDP is a requirement that is  
very apparent, with or without the V6 illustration.

> -- Christian Huitema

If you wanted to mention about the requirement for support for 
V6 addresses, that did not require a whole section on V6 and a
transition mechanism. Oh, well, sorry to have been a pest. Hope 
you understand. Thanks. 
 
Regards,
suresh

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/