[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Text on 3GPP UE tunneling
-- Friday, January 23, 2004 17:13:39 +0200 Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
wrote/a ecrit:
> Hello,
>
> (wg co-chair hat on)
>
> The 3GPP analysis document is being finished, and as there was not so
> much feedback, the chairs would like to avoid WG last-calling the
> document again.
>
> However, to avoid document revision churn and get an acceptable
> outcome, only the extensively discussed topic, UE tunneling, seems to
> warrant some discussion before shipping the document, on Monday or
> Tuesday.
>
> Below is a proposal on the wording to use (pay attention to the middle
> paragraph). The intent is to try to document all the sides of the
> argument and avoiding opening too many cans-of-worms, while being
> brief.
>
> Please send feedback whether you think that OK or not on the list. If
> you do not think it is appropriate, you MUST supply an alternative
> wording.
>
> Thanks,
> Pekka & Jonne
>
> [...]
> The use of private IPv4 addresses in the UE depends on the support
> of these addresses by the tunneling mechanism and the deployment
> scenario. In some cases public IPv4 addresses are required, but if
> the tunnel endpoints are in the same private domain, or the
> tunneling mechanism works through IPv4 NAT, private IPv4 addresses
> can be used. One deployment scenario example is using a laptop
> computer and a 3GPP UE as a modem. IPv6 packets are encapsulated in
> IPv4 packets in the laptop computer and IPv4 PDP context is
> activated. The used tunneling mechanism in that case depends on the
> support of tunneling mechanisms in the laptop computer. Another
> deployment scenario is making IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling in the UE
> itself.
>
> Closer details for an applicable tunneling mechanism are not
> analyzed in this document. However, a simple host-to-router
> (automatic) tunneling mechanism may be a good fit. There is not
> yet consensus on the right approach. Primarily, ISATAP [ISATAP]
> has been proposed, but some issues have been raised about it,
> such as its unnecessary features and relative complexity for a
> simple task like this, and its inadequacy in providing security
> when crossing administrative domains. Proposed solution
> alternatives have been (at least) a simplified, but probably
> non-interoperable, version of ISATAP, and STEP [STEP].
TSP is another alternative and should be noted. Suggesting:
version of ISATAP, STEP and TSP.
Marc.
>In any
> case, further work is needed to find out the requirements for the
> scenario and to specify the mechanism.
>
> To generally solve this problem (IPv6 not available in the 3GPP
> network), this document strongly recommends the 3GPP operators to
> deploy basic IPv6 support in their GPRS networks. That also makes
> it possible to burden the transition effects in the network and
> make the 3GPP UEs simpler.
> [...]
>
> [STEP] refers to draft-savola-v6ops-conftun-setup-01.txt
>
> If the middle paragraph does not seem to be agreeable, we may use
> something more generic, like:
>
> Closer details for an applicable tunneling mechanism are not
> analyzed in this document. However, a simple host-to-router
> (automatic) tunneling mechanism may be a good fit. Further
> work is needed find out the requirements of the scenario
> and to specify the mechanism.
>
>
------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Hexago
tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------