RE: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

ISATAP disappears once use is not required there is not administration
to remove it on the end node and other forms of transition  can be used.
That is not the case with tunnels that are not automatic.  This is one
reason I know of very large Japan Provider that is using ISATAP
currently for 3G+GPRS+etc pilots.

I also think it unwise to question the markets decision just like we did
not 6to4.  And I know users who will never use 6to4.  The point is
ISATAP has a market it exists.  It will expand and exists with or
without us.  I suggest we be smart and work on it.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 5:10 AM
> To: Tim Chown
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms
> 
> Tim Chown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 11:22:12PM +0300, Soininen Jonne 
> (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) wrote:
> > 
> >>I do personally believe that ISATAP is pointed as the most 
> promising 
> >>solution for automatic tunneling in the 3GPP analysis document and 
> >>thus, should be listed as a solution to be standardized.
> > 
> > 
> > Our own experience (non-small enterprise) is that we prefer 
> to deploy 
> > a structured (configured) transition mechanism - in our case 
> > VLAN-based
> > IPv6 propogation - rather than an unstructured (automatic) 
> method.  So
> > we don't see any need for ISATP in our particular scenario. 
>   However,
> > I can see why some others see some attraction.
> 
> I think many enterprise networks will agree, not to mention 
> that since ISATAP solves the NBMA problem, it has some 
> intrinsic complexity. So I do echo Alain's question: what 
> makes ISATAP fit better than ordinary tunnels, in the 3GPP secnario?
> 
>     Brian
> 
>