Skip to main content

Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks
RFC 3904

Yes

(Margaret Cullen)

No Objection

(Alex Zinin)
(Jon Peterson)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Ted Hardie)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(David Kessens; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2004-06-17)
After the last call was finished, I received the following comment from Fred Templin:

I just noticed that this document
fails to mention [ISATAP] as an applicable automatic tunnel mechanism
(without NAT traversal) for unmanaged networks.

[ISATAP] is needed for host-to-host and host-to-router interactions
within unmanaged networks - especially accross bridges, ND proxies,
multi-link subnets, etc.

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-06-22)
You say that "it is not clear that a combination of STUN and a bubble mechanism would have a technical advantage over a solution specifically designed for automatic tunneling through NAT."  Is there a deployment advantage?  That is, are STUN servers already being deployed for NATs, and hence can be used for IPv6 transition, too?

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()