RE: ISATAP links connect *router* interfaces

["Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>]

Fred,

Would that mean that the nodes running ISATAP "as a router"
would have to run a routing protocol?

   - Alain. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:31 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Bound, Jim; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ISATAP links connect *router* interfaces
> 
> Brian,
> 
> > But have all implementations done that? 6to4 was 
> specifically designed 
> > for router-only implementation; the first widely shipped 
> > implementation was for host-based 6to4, which has well-known issues.
> 
> I haven't done a survey of the widely-deployed 
> implementations, but a host-based ISATAP would be a 
> degenerate case since it requires that a global IPv6 address 
> with ISATAP interface ID be assigned on the ISATAP interface 
> and that the ISATAP host somehow establish trust 
> relationships with ISATAP routers on the link.
> 
> Having the ISATAP nodes act as routers on the ISATAP link 
> alleviates these issues since only link-locals need be 
> assigned on the ISATAP interface, and since the trust basis 
> between routers on the same ISATAP link would be the same as 
> the trust model for routers attached to any other type of 
> link in the Internet.
> 
> Note that when I say "ISATAP nodes act as routers", I am 
> specifically not meaning to say that this is restricted to 
> platforms that we have traditionally thought of as being 
> routers, since sometimes the end nodes themselves can be 
> configured as hybrid hosts/routers.
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> 
>