Re: [RAM] Request to advance RFC4214 to Proposed Standard

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

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:51:48AM -0700, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Brian, 
> 
> > Actually the VE work was directly triggered by the 6over4 draft;
> > it was a student of Lixia Zhang, and the 6over4 authors encouraged
> > him!
> 
> Thanks for setting the record straight on this; another reason
> to recycle RFC4214 would be to simply get our references to past
> works updated accordingly.

The reason we didn't use ISATAP in early deployment phases here is that
we simply didn't want arbitrary automatic tunnelling between links 
within our site.   We have a preference to manage and structure the
connectivity.    If the auto-tunnelling were all on one link, then we
may as well use native IPv6.    Instead we managed the connectivity between
the early adopter links.    We wouldn't use 6over4 in our environment for
the same reason, although IPv4 multicast is available.

That said, I can see how there may be a useful application of ISATAP
for manets, and would be interested in seeing an example deployment plan
or scenario.

-- 
Tim