Subject: Re: 3gpp-analysis-05: Automatic tunneling inside 3GPP operator's network

From: Jasminko Mulahusic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:42:11 +0200

> Right.  Although I would rephrase this:
> 
> I am proposing that the systems either:
> 
>  1) run multiple routing protocol, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6
> (basically, different combinations of OSPFv2|IS-IS and OSPFv3|IS-IS,
> excluding RIPv2 and RIPng), or
> 
>  2) run a single routing protocol which includes both IPv4 and IPv6 over
> the infrastructure supporting both (basically, IS-IS)
> 

i fail to see why/how this should be discussed/handled within this 
document. this is something for the isp team to think about and come 
with solutions. after all, what has been discussed here are small ip 
backbones and hopefully solutions for those will come out of the isp 
design team.

thus, i suggest completely removing section 3.2.1 or simply referencing 
to the efforts being done within the isp design team.

jasminko

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:28:33 +0300 (EEST)

> backbones and hopefully solutions for those will come out of the isp 

Right.. there's already some text relating to this overlap in the
document.
 
> to the efforts being done within the isp design team.

That would be OK by me .. or if we can come up with a very minimalistic
proposal, that's fine too.

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