Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks
RFC 3904
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(David Kessens; former steering group member) Yes
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
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) No Objection
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