RE: draft-daniel-dhc-ipv6in4-opt-03.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 juha.wiljakka@nokia.com wrote:
> There is also a simpler, usable mechanism if v6-in-v4 tunneling is
> needed in a 3GPP UE: ISATAP. That does not require DHCP
> implementation in the UE. See Dave's comments here:
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2004/msg00814.html

While ISATAP may be slightly simpler from the server's implementation 
point-of-view, it has problems of its own.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of ext Grubmair Peter
> Sent: 27 May, 2004 14:52
> To: V6ops_Discussion (E-mail)
> Subject: draft-daniel-dhc-ipv6in4-opt-03.txt
> 
> 
> Dear Sirs, 
> I highly appreciated finding your draft 
> concerning "DHCP Option for Configuring IPv6-over-IPv4 Tunnels" 
> at IETF. 
> To my mind this is one of the simplest form of a first transition 
> for mobile (GPRS) operators to supply IPv6 to 
> their customers. 
> After finding the tunnel endpoint via your DHCP option 
> a dual stack mobile phone can do autoconfiguration (or DHCPv6) 
> accros the tunnel and obtain a globally unique IPv6 address, 
> allthough its IPv4 address is only private. 
> (no DAD is needed as link-local address is constructed from 
> IPv4 address, which is unique within operators area). 
> tunnel establishment at operator side could be done with adhoc mode
> as described in >>Simple IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnel Establishment Procedure
> (STEP)<<
> (draft-savola-v6ops-conftun-setup-02.txt)
> this could be the m
> I hope that your suggestion evolves to an RFC soon. 
> Best regards 
>    Peter Grubmair 
> 

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings