RE: draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Karen E. Nielsen (AH/LMD) wrote:
> > IMHO the issue I see with leaving these out is the transition
> > mechanism
> > becomes a solution for only the most basic of "web" type services.
> > While this makes the solution simple, it removes the motivation for
> > IPv6 within the 3GPP network. It is important to at least match or
> > mimic the functionality available in the IPv4 domain.
>
> Tunnelling in 3GPP is not intended to provide full emulation of
> the native IPv4 or native IPv6 services, since that would basically require
> full dual IP support in all related 3GPP signalling interfaces.

Without knowing the details here, I'll have to personally join in the 
first mentioned sentiment: as far as I see it, the UE tunneling offers 
the operators and UE vendors the chance to pilot IPv6 application 
deployments etc. without requiring immediate upgrades in the 3GPP 
network.

Unless the tunneling can provide a reasonable means to test out at 
least some potential applications that could be realized with IPv6, 
then its applicability might be a bit questionable.

Remember, IPv6 isn't all that inrestesting just because of a dancing 
turtle on a web page ;-).  It needs to provide a way to deploy nice 
new applications.  Even though full functions of IPv6 were not yet 
realized with the tentative tunneling solution, IMHO it should provide 
at least basic means to deploy some novel IPv6 applications (e.g., 
relativng to peer-to-peer).

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