Subject: RE: manual config of UE tunnel [RE: 3gpp-analysis: Recommendation on tunneling in the UE]

From: "Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:58:37 +0100

> > We don't want to go there (likely to get stuck in complex GGSN
 > > and 3gpp network internals).
 > 
 > We don't know until this has been analyzed.
 > 
 > This could really be no more complicated than sending a "I want to 
 > use IPv6 using a tunnel" SMS (or something like that), and then your 
 > phone and the tunnel endpoint would be configured automatically.

Pls see Juha's email on the complexity of doing these configs.
It makes things MORE complicated.

 > 
 > >  > It seems to make that configured tunnels has about equal 
 > >  > config for 1) and
 > >  > 3), and making 2) easier should be easily possible 
 > because the 3GPP
 > >  > network must know the addresses of every user involved anyway.
 > > 
 > > See above. This can only make things very complex.
 > > 2) should not rely on special mechanisms in the 3gpp network.
 > > It is no point to have a solution that requires changes to 3gpp
 > > nodes since they might as well be upgraded to support v6!
 > 
 > Would a modification be required?  I'm not so sure of that.  There 
 > must be some mechanisms to retrieve this information, either 
 > e.g. SNMP 
 > query or access to a database, or something.  That should be pretty 
 > much all you need.

That makes certain assumptions about implementations.
Seriously, it is not feasible. Also I can't understand why you think
digging info from a database is simpler than just using ISATAP.
Anyway, enough emails on this subject for me since we're not getting
anywhere.

/Karim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:27:19 +0200 (EET)

> It makes things MORE complicated.

Do you mean:

[Juha W.]
> Furthermore, I personally don't believe that configured tunnels make
> a feasible solution for this specific problem (even though they
> provide a good solution for some other scenarios). You must remember
> the high number of UEs and dynamic addressing. And any extra
> configuration effort isn't nice for the users. If you make the extra
> configurations using SMS (like configuring APN settings for
> different applications), that means one SMS more. The point is:  
> IPv6 should be as easy as possible.

There are some assumptions in this paragraph and few technical facts.  
This needs more elaboration.

E.g.:
 - why exactly would there have to be more than 1 SMS?  The address is 
just 32 bits, 4 characters (out of 160 or so :-).  Could be easily 
compressed in one message.

 - why exactly should there be any extra config for the user?  It 
could be completely transparent to them.

> Anyway, enough emails on this subject for me since we're not getting

I'd like to hear more of these assumptions.

That avoids getting the other features of ISATAP we don't need here, 
and provide a simpler architecture.

I do not believe this possibility has been analyzed well enough to
understand it's possibilities (or potential flaws).

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