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 IESG 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 IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Steven Bellovin Former IESG 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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()