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] ]

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

On Mar 30, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Fred Templin wrote:

> 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.

Well, one could take this as a sign that the case is not that solid...

> 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.

I'm not looking at a MUST. Brian pointed earlier that a SHOUD rather 
than a
MUST was more suitable. Actually the discussion is more between a MAY 
and a SHOULD.
Essentially, the text I would like to see is something like 
"Implementations MAY
decide not to  support multiple tunneling types over the same IPv4 
address"

	- Alain.