[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fragmenting the discussion space
I think I would assert that shim6 does *not* change
any fundamentals of addressing or routing (in particular
it doesn't create a genuine id/loc split and it doesn't
change the route aggregation model). The same is true
of SCTP, by the way. So this particular model for multihoming
doesn't seem to be all that radical to me.
Bound, Jim wrote:
Mobility is orthogonal to the solution for multihoming.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: fragmenting the discussion space
I can understand that excluding some of the related issues makes a
discussion easier. But isn't one of the reasons we have fragmented
solutions and lack a coherent architecture due to the fact
that we have
not yet learned to discuss complex issues including all of
In many cases, ignoring the details to get a quick solution out is
reasonable. In the case of changing the basic behavior of IP and of
the addressing architecture, this seems to me to be unwise.
On 15 mar 2005, at 08.58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This thread shows fairly clearly why the BOF co-chairs
excluded mobility: we wanted shim6 to focus on a concrete
solution space, not to re-open old debates that we finally
got past in multi6.