Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED) wrote:
> It may or it may not end up being lightweight.
> For 3GPP lightweight however is demanded.

Lightweight is an undefined term.

As far as I can see, ISATAP adds extra data structures and
extra state machine logic to the basic proto 41 encapsulation/
decapsulation logic that every 3GPP device will need anyway.
The question is whether that costs more or less silicon and power
than the alternatives. Until the alternatives have been defined,
that question has no answer.

Of course, 3GPP could decide to make its choice before the
alternatives have been defined and evaluated, but that would
be an act of faith. It might be a legitimate choice, to meet
deadlines, but we should be clear about it.

   Brian

> Karen
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alain.Durand@Sun.COM [mailto:Alain.Durand@Sun.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 6:41 AM
> > To: Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)
> > Cc: 'Pekka Savola'; Karim El-Malki (AL/EAB); 'Soininen Jonne ';
> > 'v6ops@ops.ietf.org '
> > Subject: Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms
> >
> >
> > Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED) wrote:
> >
> > > Alain,
> > >
> > > Something else I perhaps forgot to stress in my answer, is
> > > that 3GPP explicitly demands a lightweight protocol - 
> >
> > tailored for usage
> >
> > > on mobile devices for a limited time only, 
> >
> > draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-10.txt 
> > >
> >
> > > - a protocol fulfilling the requirements of your document 
> >
> > seems to be anything but that.
> >
> >
> > Until we made an analysis of the existing protocols that 
> > could be taken 
> > as is or augmented to satisfy the "goals", it is not fair to say that
> > the protocol will not be "lightweight".
> >
> > 	- Alain.