RE: Defintion of Automatic tunnels

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
[...]
> also I have figured out a way to avoid nat in IM for 3GPP the question
> for me is it even worth sharing that pearl here in the IETF or just take
> it to 3GPP and TEMS vendors.  Hint is option I found in pdp context
> packet.

Please share it; I bet that could avoid a lot of pain in the specification
and implementation perspectives (plus causing confusion due to IETF spec
saying one thing and vendors doing the other).  It would likely avoid
doing NAT, NAT being something neither of us (and probably a huge majority
of the community) don't want.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:19 PM
> > To: Alain.Durand@Sun.COM; Brian E Carpenter
> > Cc: Erik Nordmark; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Defintion of Automatic tunnels
> > 
> > 
> > > So I think it is still pertinent for the IETF to have an opinion on
> > the
> > > matter
> > > and to recommend one approach versus the other, or maybe both if it
> > can
> > > be proven
> > > that there are technical reasons to do so.
> > 
> > This is pretty close to recommending operational procedures, 
> > and frankly that is not what the IETF does best. The IETF 
> > shines when it produces sound specifications, or thorough 
> > technical analyses. But operation practices are better left 
> > to practicians, which may be another way of saying "to the market."
> > 
> > -- Christian Huitema
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

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