Re: ISATAP scenario

[Florent Parent <Florent.Parent@hexago.com>]

-- On Tuesday, August 03, 2004 17:58:30 +0200, Christian Schild wrote:

...

> 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.

Complexity here is more related to your implementation. I suggest you take 
a look at the TSP broker implementation (client code available on 
www.freenet6.net, multiple platforms supported). From the user point of 
view, this is a service that runs in the backgroud which keeps your IPv6 
connectivity up and running. And you get NAT traversal as a bonus.

My point here is simply that tunnel broker/assisted tunneling solution can 
be as simple to the enduser as other mechanisms.


> 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.

This was mentionned during the v6ops meeting:

<http://www.linux-ipv6.org/ml/usagi-announce/msg00102.html>.
"remove ISATAP because it is (1) rather obsolete and (2) of IPR 
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/sri-ipr-draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap.txt>."

Fred T. reported that is was put back in USAGI 2.4.

Florent