RE: 3gpp-analysis document and automatic tunneling

[<juha.wiljakka@nokia.com>]

 Hi, Pekka!

Trying to briefly answer your questions considering the issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
Sent: 14 May, 2003 14:33

I'd like to raise one issue in the 3gpp-analysis document which bothers me 
a lot.

I'd like to either understand the reasoning for mentioning all the kinds
of automatic tunneling mechanism in this draft, or remove the references.
(the last paragraph of 2.2 quoted below, and some re-editing of the
paragraphs in 3.2.1).

  JW: What comes to the tunneling text in 2.2, I am fine with shortening it. There actually isn't anything 3GPP-specific, it is more like general tunneling description that is already described elsewhere (RFC 2893, etc...). As you see, the references to DSTM, ISATAP and TEREDO are informational references and thus not vital in this document. They are just mentioned as examples of tunneling mechanisms. Would making the tunneling text shorter (e.g. one paragraph) and removing the references to mechanisms (that are not used in this document) be a good thing to do in your opinion?

In particular, I feel this is an issue about IGP/BGP tunneling.  It is
possible such methods could be used -- if the network is built just so --
but that's entirely different thing from whether they're a required or
even a recommended solution ("we have a hammer, now let's go find the
nails").

  JW: Well, I don't think we can give unambiguous recommendations. It is much better to discuss different solution alternatives. Anyway, we can't require any solutions to be used by operators. We had some discussion with other authors (especially Karim) how to edit the text. One point that was brough up in the discussion was redundancy. Static tunnels on their own don't give a solution if a route goes down. Instead, EGP/IGP mechanisms support this. Say that I have multiple tunnels to two router endpoints connected to the same network. If one goes down I would like to start tunnelling to the other. Do you have any comments on this?

I fail to see anything 3GPP specific in the description of the network in 
3.2.1 and consequently, I'd rather not go down the rathole of describing 
how an ISP would run its network in the 3GPP scenarios/analysis document.  
Rather, I'd try to work out generic ISP scenarios in the ISP 
documents to avoid duplicating the work.

  JW: I fully agree with you that we should not do work that actually belongs to the ISP design team. What kind of text would you suggest in our document? 

Therefore, I'd like to either understand why this is in scope and what's 
3GPP specific about it, or try to reword the text appropriately (I can 
try to help if needed).

  JW: Certainly, your help is appreciated!

 Thanks for your comments,

		-Juha W.-