[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Going forward with zero-config tunneling requirement
Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED) wrote:
For some time now 3GPP has asked for the support of the IETF
to produce a standardised, solid tunnelling solution that
meets its needs.
Isatap has been identified by some as a potential solution,
and have been successfully deployed in
proto-type like 3GPP deployment environments.
Consequently people have pressed for the standardization of Isatap and
by standardisation here then I do not mean "rubber stamping" of the draft but
about qualified technical challenging, tie of loose ends, adjustments of possible
problems - all the things that the IETF normally do when making a "standard".
1. 3GPP wants quality output from the IETF.
* The timing requirements of 3GPP are very harsh and it was thought that we could not afford to loose time
by potentially blurring the requirements by the addition of various other aspects to the document.
2. 3GPP needs it by November.
That being said, it is clear, of course, that in order for us to be able knowingly to choose a solution which
applies not only to the 3GPP scenario, but also to e.g. the simple enterprise scenario, then the requirements work
of these other scenarios must move very fast too.
3. We would all want to avoid too many mechanisms i.e. try to have
mechanisms which apply for multiple scenarios.
1-3 is an overconstrained problem.
I would argue that 2 is incompatible with 1.
Why can't 3GPP just define a way to carry the IPv4 address of a tunnel
endpoint in the 3GPP protocol which configures the IPv4 address of the
terminal (whatever this protocol is called)?
That would provide one solution which satisfies #2.
Then we have time to work on a solution which satisfies #1 and #3.
Erik