Re: unmanaged solutions comments

[Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com>]

I should probably comment on this, since I've spent some time thinking
about the subject recently:

--- Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca> wrote:
> automatic tunnels techniques usually mean (by design) that the path is not 
> "controlled".

In the case of ISATAP, "control" is provided by the site security recommendations
in the base document. If a particular deployment perceives a need, stronger degrees
of control might be possible by fusing end-to-end (or, end-to-edge) mechanisms with
the ISATAP base specification. This would result in a "semi-automatic-automatic"
tunnel; cumbersome wording, but still a useful mechanism.  

> semi-automatic tunnels techniques like tunnel brokers can be deployed so 
> that it does have less sub-optimal forward/reverse paths. It depends on 
> where/how you deploy them. If they are near to you, network topologically 
> speaking, then the sub-optimal paths might be not that a problem.

This is never a problem with automatic tunnels (even when they are
"semi-automatic-automatic"); route optimization is enabled by default.

Fred
osprey67@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com