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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:53:45AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> OK, so define ESATAP :)
> 
> I have always viewed ISATAP as an intra-site tool.   As such its use
> does not impact the global architecture in the way that 6to4 or Teredo do,
> which is a plus point in favour of its adoption...

I'll respond, just in case you were serious.. :-)

The point of ISATAP (as I see it) to run it as an intra-site tool.  It
could be rather useful there, especially if there are VPNs and such where
you can't use VLANs etc..  However, rather than specifying something
similar that runs inter-domain, we should focus on determining what is
actually needed when running inter-domain.

I.e., start from a clean slate instead of trying to work ISATAP towards
being an inter-domain tool.

Note: ISATAP however is less intrusive for the global architecture, as it
uses the interface ID for its operations, does not require a prefix -- so
it's transparent to the rest of the 'net users, rather than 6to4/Teredo.
So, it's not IMHO totally fair to compare ISATAP to 6to4/Teredo w/ 
interdomain architecture.

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