[arin-ppml] DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)

[David Farmer]

On 26 Mar 2009 John Schnizlein wrote:

> Are you actually saying you think that creating these tunnels, with 
> the side effect of reliance on a third party for security and 
> stability, not to mention the profit of the party providing service, 
> is better for the Internet than transferring an address to the party 
> that wants to reach the (legacy) IPv4-only hosts that will remain on 
> the Internet for some time?
> 
> Really?

Yea, really, people do it everyday, it is call VPN.  It is not 
exactly the same thing, but not that different.  Today, 
especially with cheap high speed broadband, how many 
companies are connecting their remote offices with Internet 
VPN.  At the University of Minnesota we are, and we are even 
using globally accessible IPv4 addresses inside the encrypted 
tunnels.  

Today many people are implementing IPv6 inside of tunnels of 
one kind or another, 6to4, 6over4, 6PE, 6VPE, they are all 
tunnels over their dominant network technology, IPv4 or MPLS.  
People tunnel SNA and other legacy protocols inside IPv4 
today too.  

Why is it so hard to believe that some day we will tunnel the 
legacy protocol call IPv4 a dominate protocol called IPv6?

> On 2009Mar26, at 2:51 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> > Customer wants to field a server with an IPv4 address on it FINE.
> > Nothing is stopping them from going to an IPv4 gateway provider and
> > getting a static IPv4 address, and tunneling from their server to
> > that provider over the IPv6 Internet.


================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======