RE: ISATAP vs alternatives in 3GPP [Re: comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-09.txt]

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

 > Soliman,

=> I prefer Hesham, one day I'll make sure 
they make my first name appear in the right order ;)


 > 
 > I certainly can see no scenario in which a 6to4 interface and
 > an ISATAP interface should be simultaneously active on the
 > same IPv4 interface. These should definitely be mutually
 > exclusive. And that should perhaps be stated in the document.

=> Agreed.

 > > => In other words make the doc vague and practically useles.
 > > This is the effect of not recommending anything.
 > 
 > I think the issue here is that ISATAP is a complicated solution
 > and not everybody is confident that it is good engineering to
 > recommend it. And of course STEP is too new.

=> I guess we can discuss whether it's complicated or 
not. But in any case, it's implemented by several 
major vendors. I'll let them speak for themselves.

 > Have you polled people privately to find out who is intending
 > to productize ISATAP? 

=> Yes and the answers are positive. Again I'd like them
to speak for themselves.

   In terms of a solid recommendation
 > to the 3GPP industry, that is more important than anything. What is
 > the status of ISATAP interoperability testing?

=> I know of at least 2 interoperable implemenations
that have been rigorously tested. Fred might know more.

Hesham