RE: manual config of UE tunnel [RE: 3gpp-analysis: Recommendation on tunneling in the UE]

[Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

 > > But this is a problem. The new solution has to be specified and
 > > implemented. This is not a trivial process. The boxes (and most
 > > probably are) of different vendors and implementing something like
 > > this and integrating it to the current networks is not a trivial
 > > task.
 > 
 > Which implemenation are you refering to?  You probably wouldn't need 
 > to touch 3GPP systems; more probably, all you'd have to is to modify 
 > the tunnel router (which could be just a PC, a regular IPv6 
 > router, or 
 > whatever).

=> A PC ??? Come on... The routers used to connect the 
GGSN to are BIG! 3GPP or not, a core router used in a telecommunications
network is required to be reliable. Now, you said you did
product development before, so think about how long it 
takes to specify a solution on a product level, order 
a project, allocate resources, develop it, test it then
release it and support it. Think about that and then
try to convince someone who already developed another
solution to remove it and adopt this new idea that you
propose (which we certainly don't understand fully yet). 

A much easier process is to ask for WG concensus on this
issue and follow whatever the WG wants to do.

 > 
 > Right.  So, the users, even when roaming, get the IP address 
 > from the 
 > home GGSN.  So the addresses used by the users are known at least by 
 > the home GGSN, and probably also some other accounting/billing 
 > databases etc.
 > 
 > If one doesn't provide the users a static IPv4 address, it 
 > may not be 
 > a requirement to provide a static IPv6 prefix (especially if 
 > the GGSNs 
 > etc. don't support v6 yet) either, right?
 > 
 > In such a case, it'd probably be enough to just give everyone a v6 
 > prefix either sequentially or depending on the v4 address, 
 > e.g. using 
 > the STEP "ad-hoc" mechanism.  
 > 
 > With that kind of "trick", the tunnel router would not have 
 > to get the
 > user/IP-address/v6-prefix information from anywhere, but the tunnels
 > would function as if they were configured tunnels, and the UE's would
 > not even know the tunnel router is doing some "magic tricks" to
 > generate configured tunnels.

=> Pekka, I hope you realise how many assumptions you are making
and assuming that this is _the_ way it should be. Again, is all this
worth it? I don't think so. 

It'd be really great if there is a concensus call on this issue
so that we can decide whether we _have_ to look at other 
options or simply take what we have now. Why not ask the WG?

Hesham