[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed text for charter
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, I disagree. This may amount to asking for the
impossible. We can properly require a shim6 implementation to
co-exist with mobility implementations, but we cannot require it
to operate simultaneously with them; that may turn out to be
simply impossible. As I wrote a few days ago, it may be necessary
to instruct shim6 to switch itelf off when some other functions
are switched on.
While I don't have a problem with the charter not committing to solving
this problem, I don't see it as being as hard as you think.
We have shim6, which says it will be transparent to what runs of top of
it, be it TCP, UDP, ICMP, or anything else.
We have MIPv6, which is transparent to what runs on top of it the same way.
Thus both layering shim6 over mipv6, and layering mipv6 over shim6,
should work in the sense that the protocol mechanisms continue to
function. Whether either or both combinations provide a useful combined
"service" is a different matter, but it seems to me that the shim6
layered over mipv6 can be quite useful in the case of a mobile IPv6 node
which has multiple home addresses, perhaps from independent home agents,
where the shim6 overlay would could be used to create a system where a
home agent (or the network in which the home agent resides) is not a
single point of failure.