Re: Going forward with zero-config tunneling requirement

[Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com>]

Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> wrote:

 

> 2. 3GPP needs it by November.

 

 

The only reasons I could see for such a hard-and-fast deadline would be if:

a) there were near-unanimous agreement that the best possible solution

was in-hand, and the issue becomes one of time-to-market, or: b) a better

(and perhaps inevitable) technical solution were looming on the horizon,

and some would try to block it from happening to protect selfish interests.

 

I have received quite a bit of feedback about ISATAP - both positive and

negative. But, I have not seen compelling evidence to support a) - only

evidence to the contrary.

 

If the nature of the push is instead about b), and the b) people get their

way, then the enduring legacy of the IETF will be one of having snatched

defeat from the jaws of victory.

> 3. We would all want to avoid too many mechanisms i.e. try to have
> mechanisms which apply for multiple scenarios.

 

 

I may have been one of the first to use the phrase: "no one-size-fits-all"

in relation to transition mechanisms almost exactly 2 years ago. I did

not know what I was talking about at the time, and (like the bad dog

that gets his nose rubbed in it) have spent the better part of these past

2 years eating those words through a painful discovery process.

 

It seems to me that there is a unified solution on the horizon that can

apply to all scenarios. I'm still not 100% certain as to whether ancillary

mechanisms are needed, but if they are then: 1) they are *very* few

in number, and 2) the big picture has to be about the unified solution;

*not* the ancillary mechanisms.

 

Thanks - Fred

osprey67@yahoo.com