Subject: RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

From: "Karim El-Malki (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:23:37 +0100

> IGP/BGP tunneling and mechanisms like these are _additional 
 > complexity_.
 > 
 > Such mechanisms should not be advocated -- in the face of configured
 > tunneling which is far superior for a small-to-moderate 
 > number of islands 
 > -- without a lot of care.

I don't think it is possible to make such a clear-cut statement.
The additional complexity gives you some advantages. If a path
goes down the router knows about it for example. You can't have
this in general with static routes. My point is that it depends on
the exact deployment and operator requirements so we can only make
recommendations. I think it is correct to recommend static or EGP/IGP
mechanisms if the operator wants to connect its v6 islands over v4.

/Karim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:33:44 +0200 (EET)

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Karim El-Malki (EAB) wrote:
> this in general with static routes. 

Configured tunneling does not have to mean static routes.  Static routes 
are usually used because they're simple, and right tool for most jobs.

Many run routing protocols on top of configured tunnels, thus there is no 
problem you describe.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords