RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

["Karim El-Malki (EAB)" <Karim.El-Malki@era.ericsson.se>]

 > 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.

I don't think it is possible to make such a clear-cut statement.
The additional complexity gives you some advantages. If a path
goes down the router knows about it for example. You can't have
this in general with static routes. My point is that it depends on
the exact deployment and operator requirements so we can only make
recommendations. I think it is correct to recommend static or EGP/IGP
mechanisms if the operator wants to connect its v6 islands over v4.

/Karim