[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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





Pekka Savola wrote:

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.


No need; ISATAP is already good-to-go for the inter-domain case.


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.



The point is not one of comparison; rather, ISATAP is a complementary piece that completes the package.

Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com