Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

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

Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED) wrote:
> Hi Alain,
>
> I find it difficult to argue based on draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-00.txt given that this draft so clearly focuses on the full-fledged 
> tunnelling functionality demanded by (perhaps ?) the ISP environment
> and not the lightweight tunnelling function requested for the 3GPP environment.
> Examples - just to pick a few: NAT traversal, prefix delegation, extensibility requirements of draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-00.txt. Neither of which can be found in the 3GPP v6ops documents, that is RFC 3574 and draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-10.txt.


Karen,

We had this discussion before. This is NOT because we want to be able to 
support environment with NAT or prefix delegation,.. that this
(still to de defined) protocol will not work with no overhead
in environments like 3GPP where those features are not (yet) needed.

So you still haven't answered my question. Let me ask it differently.
What does Isatap enable that a protocol metting the requirements
described in draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-00.txt
will not?

	- Alain.