[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multi6-functional-dec and re-homing
El 20/01/2005, a las 12:32, Jari Arkko escribió:
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
I mean, this means that the resulting solution will only provide any
kind of benefits when the two hosts involved in the communications
implement the shim.
this would be ok if there were not possible to do better, but this is
not the case.
We can design a solution that provide some of the fault tolerance
capabilities when just one of the endpoints support the solution. In
particular, the benefits would be the capability of establishing new
communications through the alternative paths.
Yes, but I think its the "source address selection" module
rather than the shim6 protocol proper that helps here. Both
are components of the "SHIM6 system", but nevertheless...
this would provide some fault tolerance benefits to the multihomed
site independently of whether the external hosts support the shim or
imho this would render the multihoming solution much more attractive
so i would argue that we should explicitly include an item in the
charter to do this
Right. Do you want a separate document, or just that the
specific case is described in the shim6 documents?
well i would like a separate document at least for the case when one of
the nodes is not shim capable.
I mean, if one of the nodes is a legacy node, then the options are more
limited, since we cannot expect any additional functionality from it.
In this case, the only option is to retry the establish a new
communication with a different address (i.e. different identifier and
In the case when the two nodes are shim capable, then we could expect
the shim protocol to be of use here, and for instance we could try to
use a different locator but preserving the identifier, This approach
probably will make life of the apps easier.
So i guess that it may make sense to use different approaches for
establishing new communications when the initial address has failed
depending on whether the two hosts are shim capable or not.
So, i would suggest to have al least one separate document for the case
where one of the nodes is not shim capable, if needed the other case,
where the two nodes are shim capable can be covered in the shim