Subject: 3gpp-analysis: tunneling inside 3GPP operator

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:14:52 +0200 (EET)

I'd propose to resolve the issue of tunneling inside the 3GPP operator by
rewording:

    Connection redundancy should also be noted as an important    
    requirement in 3GPP networks. Static tunnels on their own don't 
    provide a routing recovery solution for all scenarios where an IPv6
    route goes down. However, they may provide an adequate solution
    depending on the design of the network and in presence of other
    router redundancy mechanisms. On the other hand, routing protocol
    based mechanisms can provide redundancy.

to something like:

    Connection redundancy should also be noted as an important    
    requirement in 3GPP networks. Static tunnels on their own don't 
    provide a routing recovery solution for all scenarios where an IPv6
    route goes down. However, they usually provide an adequate solution
    depending on the design of the network and in presence of other
    router redundancy mechanisms, such as the use of IPv6 routing 
    protocols.

... because, IPv6 routing protocols do provide redundancy and ops folks use
them all the time, and to make the last sentence a bit more crisp.

Other than that, I don't have objections to this issue.

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