RE: comments : draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-00.txt

[<juha.wiljakka@nokia.com>]

Hi, Anand!

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Thakur, Anand [mailto:Anand.Thakur@hpsglobal.com]
Sent: 13 December, 2002 06:01

>One thing is that the selection of the type of tunneling mechanism is up to
the operator/ISP     >deployment scenario and we can only give generic
recommendations in our draft. 

Yes,i agree that we are not authorized to mandate a particular
tunneling/translation mechanism to the operator. But still don't you think
that if different operators have faith in different transition mechanisms
then compatibility may be a major issue?

 JW: I can see your point.. I also think that there are all too many alternatives available at the moment - at least I would be confused as an operator if I had to select from all the currently available alternatives. This is why I see this scenario / analysis work important. I think that a compact transition toolbox (including a couple of basic mechanisms) is needed to solve the transition scenarios - compatibility / interoperability must not be forgotten.

>A counter question: what kind of tunneling mechanims would you recommend?

I still insist that we need to come up with a tunneling mechanism that is
perfect. Whether that means rectification/modification of an existing method
or introduction of a new method. Since transition mechanisms have not yet
been deployed at a large scale, i don't think it is too late to introduce
(if required i.e.)a new tunneling mechanism. Anyway, i feel that if can do
away with NA(P)T-PT problems, atleast 80% of the job will be done.

 JW: Yep, we are in an early phase and can not clearly see yet which mechanisms are going to win. A good thing to be remembered is that the v6ops charter does not currently include specifying new transition mechanisms, at least not before the design team studies are completed.

Cheers,
	 -Juha-