Re: Going forward with zero-config tunneling requirement

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Tim Chown wrote:
> For enterprise, can we assume the zct is also within the enterprise?  My
> feeling is yes.   So the scenario is very similar.
> 
> For umanaged (=soho largely), the zct would not be within the soho network,
> rather from a host in the soho network to some external service.  This
> probably brings in NAT traversal, etc.   In this case, perhaps we should
> only be considering assisted tunnelling.
...
> Thus (unless we have other broad scenarios?) we should push Karen's draft
> for 3gpp and enterprise, and assisting tunnelling for unmanaged.   This
> could be documented in a reworked section 4 of Karen's draft?

'assisted tunneling' in the meaning 'registered' is IMHO not
sufficient for unmanaged/soho case.  The registration would be a heavy
burden on the user, especially if we'd want to provide the users (or
the vendors users are using) the capability to turn on v6 by default.

'non-registered assisted tunneling' is indeed the path of the generic
zero-conf tunneling solution.

'enterprise internal' tunneling could likely use a similar solution as 
3gpp, but the actual requirements might be different.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings