RE: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

["Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)" <karen.e.nielsen@ericsson.com>]

> Lightweight is an undefined term.
> 

Right.

The term however is used in draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-10.txt to indicate,
I would assume, something along the following lines wrt capabilities:
* should be compatible with the constrains of the 3G links and
the capabilities of the the 3G UE
* the number of features (e.g. NAT traversal etc)
demanded by the tunnelling service are limited.
At least this is what I intended it to mean.

- And yes, this is still not very precise. 
Luckily now though, given that the wg should produce a zeroconf 
tunnelling requirements document, we should
be able to move away from relying on this vaque term only.


> 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.

Yes. Again I would assume that so would any mechs relying on
automated address assignment and proto 41 encapsulation opposed to manual
confiuration of the latter.

> 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.

Yes (of course).
This with the twist though, that based on the requirements put forward (the
assisted-tunnelling draft) then these, yet to be defined, alternatives
will have to come with a lot of features not required by the 3GPP environment. 

> 
> 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.
> 

I agree about the last part.

I think that if what we have works 
and meets the time constrains (whereas the yet to be defined
won't) then faith doesn't really come into it.

Karen

>     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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
>