Subject: conclusion on 3GPP scenario 2 ?

From: "Thakur, Anand" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:44:37 +0530

Hi Juha,
Were you able to come to any conclusion after yesterday's discussion on
scenario 2? Especially in the context of the following 2 comments:

1)by Pekka
>I think we can pretty much discard [BGP][IGP] from scenario 2 too -- 
>they're applicable for smaller-than-Internet scopes, which scenario 2 does 
>not seem to be at all.

This remark may imply that configured tunneling is the only way out!
Especially because "6 to 4" security issues are yet to be sorted out. So, if
we are not using configured tunneling(due to the associated administrative
burden),6 to 4(associated security problems) and [BGP][IGP](because of the
comment above), then what are we supposed to use?

2)by Jasminko 
>this is not an issue as long as you have a continuous name space.
>and just because someone is deploying ipv6-only networks, doesn't mean the
name space is     automatically fragmented.

This remark would suggest that we need not worry about 'isolated' V6
islands. "AAAA" queries for V6 hosts will be processed due to the presence
of continuous name space.

regards,
Anand Thakur
HCL Perot Systems (A SEI CMM Level 5 Company)
Plot No 3, Sector 125, NOIDA (UP)-201301, India
* Tel  +91 120 4432755-79, X3348 (EPABX)
mobile:9811748512