[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Going forward with zero-config tunneling requirement
Erik,
Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> wrote:
> If the purpose of the 3GPP requirements is solely to convince the IETF
> that they will use ISATAP (which they might have already decided), why
> are we wasting time on a 3GPP requirements document?
> A requirements document makes sense when multiple answers are
> acceptable, but you seem to be saying that only one answer would be
> acceptable.
I did my best to present an analysis of various encapsulation alternatives
(including ISATAP) in Section 10 of the IPvLX draft; see:
Missing from the analysis is the fact that end nodes that are somehow
unable to do IPvLX (or Teredo) can use ISATAP to connect to a first-hop
IPv6 router, but I wonder whether users with multi-access capabilities
would be willing to settle for that?
> I don't have a problem with an experimental RFC describing ISATAP as
> currently implemented,
There are still some unanswered questions about ISATAP (including
the above) so I guess that would suggest experimental.
> and perhaps a separate document describing its limitations.
IPvLX already touches on some of ISATAP's limitations and proposes
an alternative. So, what do we want to do as a working group: start
talking about IPvLX, or go on pretending that it doesn't exist?
Thanks - Fred