[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Hi Tim,

Tim Chown wrote:

I was just about to post with pretty much what Pekka said.


OK. I just replied to Pekka's message on this.

I would support a comment in the draft saying why ISATAP is not so applicable
here (and unmanaged usally implies single link, and no managed networking
within the SOHO site).


Well, based on my message to Pekka I believe there may be some near-term
applicability and also somewhat longer term applicability to be considered
for the unmanaged case. (We have also seen the near-term need for a simple
host-router mechanism in the 3GPP case, and ISATAP has been mentioned
as a candidate there.)

The comment could point to the enterprise analysis
where ISATAP (I hope!) will be soundly included as a tool for disparate nodes
in a large site.


I agree that ISATAP seems like a natual fit for the enterprise, so
I believe I can speak for my co-authors in saying that we intend to
continue to pursue standards-track status for ISATAP over the
somewhat longer term, e.g., as the enterprise analysis evolves.

Otherwise the reader may think "but what about ISATAP?".


Agreed.

Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

Tim

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:13:45PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:


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