Re: 3gpp-analysis document and automatic tunneling

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 29 May 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> >>In other words, the only addresses that need to be in isatap format are
> >>those that appear in the next-hop fields of a node's IPv6 routing table
> >>entries. (In many cases, those next-hop addresses could simply be link-
> >>local.) As such, a single isatap client can connect many additional hosts.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Indeed -- but I think this is a rather challenging problem in operator <->
> >user interface (where it has been proposed in this context), as routing
> >protocol cannot be used.
> >
>
> That's OK. Even better than using a routing protocol is dhcpv6 prefix
> delegation, 

Careful here: you're proposing to extend ISATAP to be used across multiple 
administrative boundaries -- which is *specifically* has not meant to be 
(AFAIR)!

> with the isatap routers serving as delegating routers.

I assume by "isatap routers" you mean a router supporting ISATAP.

> This
> puts a single /64 into the delegating router's forwarding table instead
> of a bunch of /128's.

This seems irrelevant (in practical terms) in itself.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings