[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ISATAP scenario
In my opinion, having IPRs on standards is a big issue, and even if this doesn't precludes the WG to consider that as a solution, definitively, doesn't help the implementers, and even more, refrain them from having products in the market that include that solution.
This doesn't mean at all that I'm not against ISATAP or any other mechanism which has IPRs, but is not good, and may become one of the considerations to move forward or not.
Regards,
Jordi
---- Original Message ----
From: "Christian Schild" <join@uni-muenster.de>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:58 AM
Subject: ISATAP scenario
> To give some feedback to the discussion about ISATAP:
>
>
> We try to run/launch IPv6 in a large university network very similar to
> the case Tim presented in his drafts.
>
> Especially we use VLAN .1Q tagging technology to "import" IPv6
> capablitity to selected subnets.
>
> In fact, right now injecting IPv6 and IPv6 routing into the already
> existing VLANs is our only available mechanism to introduce IPv6
> due to current hardware and network restrictions.
>
> Still, there are some very large VLANs with large broadcast areas spread
> all over our network and the network operators refuse to activate IPv6
> in such VLANs, because of probable complex risks that could interrupt
> the current set of services. While this is partly based on fear to
> activate IPv6, there are also known real problems that could arise when
> running dual stack in the network and effects are highly unpredictable
> in large heterogenous subnets.
>
> The point is, we couldn't offer IPv6 in some subnets (these large VLANs
> are only one example, outdated hardware may be another). However, there
> are single hosts in these subnets that need IPv6 connectivity.
>
> The solution we offer now is a homegrown tunnel broker based on OpenVPN
> which is much more complex and requires much more interaction and
> knowledge of the user. Beforehand we planned to use ISATAP for such
> single hosts, but as Tim mentioned, unfortunately USAGI dropped ISATAP
> and now there is no such support in linux kernels. So we had to drop
> that solution as we could no longer offer support for all main operating
> systems in our network.
>
> So you might agree, there is a real demand for ISATAP and it's a pity it
> should go experimental track now, given the facts, that there is a real
> scenario for it, that it is (was) already implemented and that latest
> discussion showed it could be a solution in 3gpp scenarios.
>
> Christian
**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.