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.
agreed. my statement was generic, knowing that there are many variations of
this.