RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

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

 > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Karim El-Malki (EAB) wrote:
 > >  > 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. 
 > 
 > Configured tunneling does not have to mean static routes.  
 > Static routes 
 > are usually used because they're simple, and right tool for 
 > most jobs.
 > 
 > Many run routing protocols on top of configured tunnels, 
 > thus there is no 
 > problem you describe.

Don't think this is something we should recommend.
It would likely mean running a routing protocol to advertise the IPv4
tunnel endpoint address and a v6 routing protocol within the tunnel to
advertise the v6 routes. If we can run something like MP-BGP over v4
isn't that better? That's why I was assuming that configured tunnels
would be used with static routes.

/Karim