Pekka,
It is not at all true that the cooperation of an ISP is needed to
support ISATAP. ISATAP works just fine in intermittently
connected/disconnected networks - even of the mobile ad-hoc
variety. I spent several years proving this in my previous
employment at SRI, and nothing has changed since then.
See the "goals for local communications within sites" document
in the IPv6 space for other scenarios that would benefit from ISATAP.
Fred
I removed [EMAIL PROTECTED] from Cc: to avoid unnecessary cross-posting.
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> I have not studied this space, but it occurs to me that ISATAP
> could be tried as a first alternative to check whether the two
> hosts are separated by a NAT. If there is no intervening NAT,
> it seems to me that ISATAP would provide the benefit of not
> needing the UDP header and "bubble" packets, yielding
> greater efficiency. Otherwise, if blocked by a NAT the
> initiating host coud after a short timeout try again with
> Teredo.
There are multiple cases to consider:
- host/router is not behind a NAT:
* the ISP is providing the ISATAP service
==> this is a cornercase of tunnel service by the ISP
- host/router is behind a NAT:
* .. when the ISP is doing the NAT (e.g., GPRS -kin! d of scenario, also
sometimes used for commmon xDSL networks)
==> same as above, the service provided by the ISP
I don't think there's really applicability for ISATAP in this space if the
ISP is co-operating (which is the requirement for ISATAP anyway).
Configured tunneling (+ enhancements) is simpler and more generic.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
