Re: Request to Advance "Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks"

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
> Not sure what the procedure is here, but I just noticed that this document
> fails to mention [ISATAP] as an applicable automatic tunnel mechanism
> (without NAT traversal) for unmanaged networks.
> 
> [ISATAP] is needed for host-to-host and host-to-router interactions
> within unmanaged networks - especially accross bridges, ND proxies,
> multi-link subnets, etc.

(without any hats)

Good point -- I don't think ISATAP has been discussed to be used
*within* an unmanaged network.

I personally think this is probably of very marginal applicability, as
the unmanaged networks are very small (typically only one subnet or
link), with about one router.  Further, the links almost always used
inside an unmanaged network are able to support IPv6.  

So, it would seem that ISATAP might make sense here either if 

1) the gateway supported IPv6 but the links wouldn't, or

2) the gateway wouldn't support IPv6, but the nodes in a multi-link
unmanaged network would want to use IPv6 between each other.

Both cases seem very marginal to me.

Hence, I personally don't think it is necessary to include ISATAP
here.  (Remember that so-called [multi-hop] ad-hoc networks, where
this would possibly be more strongly arguable for, were considered out
of scope for the v6ops scenarios work, AFAIR.)

And since we're already past WG last call(s), this is probably a moot
point in any case..

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