Re: 3gpp-analysis: Recommendation on tunneling in the UE

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> >.. I think ISATAP is definitely an overkill in this specific scenario.
> 
> If by "overkill" you mean that it *works better* than the other
> alternatives, then I agree since ISATAP is more automatic, agile and
> efficient than the other alternatives. But, this would amount to an
> attarctive incentive and not a negative as is usually implied by the
> term "overkill".

Yes, in this particular case, ISATAP provides more features than I believe
we need (such as, automatic tunneling between ISATAP nodes, prefix
delegation support, etc.).  Thus, a more simplified mechanism would be
better.

I'm also not confortable running ISATAP over administrative borders, as
has been suggested here.  This applies in a similar fashion and to a
lesser extent also to the unmanaged case where the ISP is doing NAT but
wanting to offer IPv6.

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