Re: Going forward with zero-config tunneling requirement

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Pekka, all,

I'm not really convinced about this view.

My vision is:

1) Assisted tunneling will basically help to services like what we today
generally know as Tunnel Brokers. This provides the more feature-rich
option.

2) Then we have the need for a zero configuration in 3GPP environment, which
explicitly excludes NAT traversal.

3) Finally we have the need for a zero configuration in non-3GPP
environments, which will require NAT traversal.

My view actually is that 2 & 3 could be the same, specially because in the
real world I've seen GPRS deployment both with no-NAT (public addresses) and
using NAT (with private addresses). But in the later case, NAT traversal was
not required because proto-41 forwarding worked. Of course, this may be not
the case all the time !

I also understand that having a zero configuration solution w/o NAT
traversal could be technically very difficult and probably will mean that
the solution will not be "simple" as required by 3GPP (no new "whatever" in
the existing infrastructure). Of course, everything needs to be balanced and
considered.

The question here is probably to have the reply to "will all the 3GPP
deployments forward 41 even when using NAT ?". Can any of the experts on
this have an answer ?

Finally, my opinion is that a single document can take both 3GPP and
non-3GPP zeroconfig, but may be we need to progress a little bit on the
solution or candidate solutions to assert that ?

In the worst case, I can live also having 2 requirement documents and 2
solutions.

I'm already working on those topics, and of course, will be available to
continue working on that, and happy to start a non-3GPP document/s if that's
the WG decision.

Regards,
Jordi




> Hi,
> 
> (co-chair hat on)
> 
> There has been some discussion on whether the zero-config tunneling
> requirements document should be specific to 3GPP or not.  Assisted
> tunneling document also includes some discussion overlapping this
> problem space.  These issues will need to be resolved to make
> progress.
> 
> (i.e., draft-nielsen-v6ops-zeroconf-goals-01.txt +
> draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-00.txt)
> 
> People who have commented on this seem to have reached (off-list)
> consensus that draft-nielsen should be revised to be more explicitly
> 3GPP -specific, the 'simple' mode should be removed from assisted
> tunneling requirements, and a new document, discussing the the more
> general 'zero-config' problem space (ISP/unmanaged, possibly
> enterprise) should be written.
> 
> (The primary alternative would have been to expand
> draft-nielsen's scope to include all the zero-config tunneling
> scenarios.)
> 
> The goal is to be able to revise or write the documents ASAP, adopt
> them as WG documents, and proceed to WG last calls as appropriate
> quickly.
> 
> If you have comments about this direction, want to volunteer to help,
> etc. -- please speak up ASAP either on- or off-list as appropriate.
> 
> (hat off)