Re: Going forward with zero-config tunneling requirement

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 09:42:25AM -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> 
> The other big picture thing I don't understand is this space is the 
> issue about handling IPv4 NATs.
> 
> The 3GPP specific requirements do not require working across a NAT, 
> which makes sense. But I see this being used as an argument that 3GPP 
> needs a solution which is incapable of working across a NAT, which makes 
> no sense at all; if there is a solution which satisfies the 3GPP 
> requirements as stated, then whether that solution satisfies additional 
> requirements should be ok.

But the 3gpp (and probably? enterprise) zct solution would be simpler for
not needing to support NAT traversal or proto 41 issues?

It seems the 3gpp community would also like a simple solution available 
quickly (i.e. yesterday :) and thus pontificating over a more complex 
solution would probably only lead to the 3gpp people developing the simple
solution anyway, outside the IETF process?

I think NAT traversal is adding complexity.  If there was a simple, standards
based way to do NAT traversal now, then emerging IPv6 tunnel brokers would
be using it.   While TSP is nice, when it comes to implementing a tunnel
broker, this is the trickiest aspect to its design (dynamic IPv4 being another
tricky - though less so - aspect).

I appreciate minimising the number of solutions is desirable, is there any
deployment problem having both zct and zct++ solutions?

-- 
Tim