Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
I do not see exactly what your problem is.
Ah. Maybe the light bulb has gone on at my end about a possible
disconnect in requirements after having read RFC 5220 and RFC 5221 and
the discussion thread from 2005 here
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05566.html.
In these days of BYOD (bring your own device), exploding numbers of
mobile devices, embedded devices, and traveling users, I feel there is a
need for a standardized non-proprietary way for a transport network
manager to be able to signal to end nodes (that may not be under his
direct administrative management) what is appropriate behavior when
connected to this particular transport network.
The usage case I had thought about for RFC 3484 in one sentence was "to
allow a transport network manager to provide hints to end nodes so that
the end nodes could optimize the selection order of various network
encapsulations when there were multiple choices available, in order to
reduce the number of unsuccessful session establishment attempts which
would lead to fall back to another encapsulation, thus reducing overall
session establishment time, leading to happier users, and to be able to
ensure compliance with an SLA e.g. by avoiding additional latency
introduced by tunnels."
Does that explain the "problem" and help put my questions in context?
regards,
RayH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
