RE: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Karim El-Malki (AL/EAB) wrote:
[Pekka:]
>> 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.
>
> Isn't there a reason number 3 you forgot about?
> 
> 3) It is an appropriate solution for the 3GPP scenario.
> 
> We can't all either be conspiring to push our solution
> (your reason 1) or plain stupid (your reason 2: we don't
> know why we want ISATAP but it takes little work to
> complete it). I haven't heard one valid technical
> reason why ISATAP doesn't make sense in a 3gpp network.

Sorry, I was a bit inprecise when I wrote "The only reasons I can
think of why folks want to go for ISATAP are:" -- what I meant was
"The only reasons I can think of why folks want to go for ISATAP *in
particular* are:" or even "The only reasons I can think of why folks
want to *require* ISATAP are:".

I can see that many people see it as an appropriate solution, as you
say.  But it's (IMHO) just that -- *a* solution; not *the* solution.  
What I was hard time seeing (my two reasons above) why something else
-- which would be more generic, applicable in more scenarios --
couldn't be an equally appropriate (or even more so) a solution.

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