Re: (ngtrans) ISATAP-04 comments/questions

Jason Goldschmidt <Jason.Goldschmidt@eng.sun.com> Thu, 18 July 2002 17:29 UTC

Message-Id: <200207181729.g6IHTBuP464123@jurassic.eng.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:29:42 -0700
From: Jason Goldschmidt <Jason.Goldschmidt@eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) ISATAP-04 comments/questions
To: jgoldsch@eng.sun.com, ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com
Cc: mohitt@windows.microsoft.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-MD5: Y29t6SscAWj6txFm97j/XQ==
Sender: owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Jason Goldschmidt <Jason.Goldschmidt@eng.sun.com>

>X-mProtect: <200207181708> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection
>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
>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.)

Nor was I, mentioning it as a part of suggested deployment scenerio sounds like 
the right thing to do.  You are correct, in no way should this limitation be 
added to the spec itself.

>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.

Sounds good.

-Jason

>
>Regards,
>
>Fred
>ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com
>

**********************************
Jason Goldschmidt                *
Sun Microsystems		 *
SNT Engineer: IPv6 Project Team  *
(650)-786-3502                   *
jgoldsch@eng.sun.com             *
**********************************

Re: (ngtrans) ISATAP-04 comments/questions Fred L. Templin
Re: (ngtrans) ISATAP-04 comments/questions Jason Goldschmidt