Re: (ngtrans) ISATAP-04 comments/questions

"Fred L. Templin" <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com> Thu, 18 July 2002 17:08 UTC

Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08371 for <ngtrans-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:08:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21182; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:08:57 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.168.88]) by engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id KAA05212; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6IH8CoN019052 for <ngtrans-dist@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.4/8.12.4/Submit) id g6IH8Cju019051 for ngtrans-dist; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: sunroof.eng.sun.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com using -f
Received: from engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM (engmail4 [129.144.134.6]) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6IH89oN019044 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.42.13]) by engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL, v2.1p1) with ESMTP id KAA11305 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.iprg.nokia.com (mailhost.iprg.nokia.com [205.226.5.12]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07377 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (darkstar.iprg.nokia.com [205.226.5.69]) by mailhost.iprg.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3-GLGS) with ESMTP id KAA29035; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id g6IH8AV14322; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:10 -0700
X-mProtect: <200207181708> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection
Received: from UNKNOWN (205.226.2.67, claiming to be "iprg.nokia.com") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpdtCtTc0; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:07 PDT
Message-ID: <3D36F7EA.4030307@iprg.nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:16:26 -0700
From: "Fred L. Templin" <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020610
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jason Goldschmidt <jgoldsch@eng.sun.com>
CC: Mohit Talwar <mohitt@windows.microsoft.com>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, "Fred L. Templin" <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) ISATAP-04 comments/questions
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10207171041010.21640-100000@dieselmeat.localnet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Fred L. Templin" <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jason,

Jason Goldschmidt wrote:
 > On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Mohit Talwar wrote:
>>Given this, as long as the ISATAP router resides in the parent
>>domain, a host in any sub-domain would be able to resolve its
>>name correctly.
>
> Am I to understand from this statement that when deploying an ISATAP
> router for a multidomained enterprise environment, the ISATAP router is
> best placed in the parent domain?  Is this something worth mentioning in
> the ISATAP draft and/or in draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-scenario-00.txt?

On this particular subject, I do not believe Mohit was intending
to imply any specific deployment scenarios or limitations in ISATAP's
applicability. Deploying ISATAP routers in the parent domain only is
one alternative, but there may be reasons for deploying them in sub-
domains as well, e.g., when the Enterprise/Managed network contains
multiple security compartments. (See the discussions with Pekka Savola 
on this subject in the NGTRANS mailing list dated 6/27/2002.)

Clearly, this is something that bears mention either in an update
to 'draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-scenario-00.txt' or in future works
that may emerge from the Enterprise/Managed Networks design team.
But, I see no inconsistencies or limitations in the ISATAP
specification itself.

Regards,

Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com