Re: Multiple tunneling protocols on the same Ipv4 address )Re: ISATAP, v6inv4 and 6to4 tunnel interworkings [RE: ISATAP vs alter natives in 3GPP [Re: comments on draft-ietf-v6 ops-3gpp-analysis-09.txt] ]

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

Alain Durand wrote:

> Could you provide an example where anchoring two or more tunneling 
> protocols
> on the same IPv4 interface makes real sense and cannot be done 
> differently? 


Yes, but probably not without sending the list into the same sort tailspin
we've seen in the past whenever this subject comes up.

I think there are plenty of messages in the archives to draw on on this
subject, but the main point is that I don't see how a: "MUST NOT configure
multiple tunneling types over the same IPv4 address" can be justified in the
face of reasonable doubt that such configurations will be required in near
term or future operational deployments.

Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com