RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Karim El-Malki (EAB) wrote:
> This is exactly the case. The tunnelling mechanisms paragraph
> mentions explicitly the case where it applies:
>
>     In a 3GPP
>     network, one IPv6 island could contain the GGSN while another
>     island contains the operator's IPv6 application servers....

I disagree: it _could_ be a case.

It also reads:

    Encapsulating node can be e.g. the GGSN or the edge router between
    the border of the operator's IPv6 network and the public Internet.

this makes it very apparent to me that main focus was tunneling in the 
internet -approach.


> >But if this is important, here something like [BGP][IGP] could be
> >usable.  
> 
> OK, so I think we agree that this scenario makes sense.

As currently written, I totally disagree.

IGP/BGP tunneling and mechanisms like these are _additional complexity_.

Such mechanisms should not be advocated -- in the face of configured
tunneling which is far superior for a small-to-moderate number of islands 
-- without a lot of care.

IMO there's something really wrong in the 3GPP operator's network if it
needs to have e.g. more than 10-15 isolated IPv6 islands there (~ reaching
one limit where in some cases configured tunneling could become more
difficult to maintain).

btw. the ridiculously long paragraph should be split in about 5.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords