Re: Opportunistic Tunneling

[Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>]

Hello Marc,

Marc Blanchet wrote:

> However, I don't understand where you are going to.

I have also been struggling to understand this distinction.

> To me, the different
> tools we are talking about are similar to that respect: isatap, 6to4,
> teredo, TSP are all, from the user point of view (i.e. the cell phone
> user), a "driver" in the operating system: i.e. they don't care and don't
> have to manage it. And the infrastructure and services to make them usable
> are provided by some downstream providers, either the direct one, or
> another one  downstream.

I agree, however it seems that TSP takes the "high road" and negotiates
tunnel configuration via TCP connections and XML exchanges while the
other mechanisms take the "low road" and use, e.g., IPv6 ND messages.
Under TSP, the number of messages involved in setting up and tearing
down TCP connections, sending the XML, etc. can seemingly become
quite high.

So, if nodes require short-lived tunnels and/or many tunnels to many
different endpoints there could be a significant efficiency advantage
in using the "low road" mechanisms. Whether this can be seen as
a measure of "opportunism" I cannot say?

Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com