RE: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

(note -- please don't copy v6ops-owner@)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Karim El-Malki (AL/EAB) wrote:
> I agree with Jonne. ISATAP is the most promising solution for 3gpp
> tunnelling so I think it should be listed amongst those that will
> proceed onto standards track. Actually I thought there had been
> enough consensus on the list for ISATAP and assumed it was on that
> list already. /Karim

FWIW, my own personal opinion...

I do not see a strong technical reason for ISATAP, especially in 3GPP.

Any relatively simple tunneling solution which requires no user
interaction to set up should be sufficient there.

The only reasons I can think of why folks want to go for ISATAP are:
 1) some have already started deploying it or piloted it, and may even 
    have already committed to it -- meaning if they care about the 
    IETF, their only option is to push for it as hard as they can.
 2) it's already "out there", requiring a smaller amount of 
    specification etc. than other mechanisms.

I personally believe that we could make do with one additional
mechanism, a tunnel server, developed based on the assisted tunneling
requirements.  If there is sufficient commitment from the people,
achieving that, even in the short term, should not be too challenging.

A significant goal has been to minimize the number of mechanisms --
"Less is More"; this was also stated by the ADs at IETF59 as well.  
Producing just one slightly more generic mechanism could help us to
obviate the need for an additional mechanism -- and thus not going for
ISATAP in 3GPP would seem useful at least for the reduction of the
required mechanisms.

And remember, ISATAP -- as implemented -- is going to be published as
Experimental RFC even if it didn't go for Standards Track -- it's
already in the RFC editor's queue.  That's sufficient for documenting
a protocol and creating interoperable implementations.  There's no
need for Standards Track (just) for that.  Standards Track should IMHO
mean just those mechanisms we really, really need -- the "IETF seal of
approval and review".  IMHO, ISATAP doesn't seem to fulfill that
criterium.

That is why I must oppose adding ISATAP to the list of standardized
mechanisms at this point.

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