[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Fwd: Review comments on draft-ietf-shim6-proto-03.txt]
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [Fwd: Review comments on draft-ietf-shim6-proto-03.txt]
- From: Erik Nordmark <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:28:00 -0800
- User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060113)
Geoff has sent me many very good editorial clarifications which I've
applied to the draft.
But there was one where I didn't quite agree that it was an editorial
change so it makes sense to discuss it on the list.
The text and Geoff's suggested change were:
The assumption is that the problem we are trying to solve is site
multihoming, with the ability to have the set of site locator
prefixes change over time due to site renumbering. Further, we
assume that such changes to the set of locator prefixes can be
relatively slow and managed; slow enough to allow updates to the DNS
to propagate. But it is not a goal to try to make communication
survive a renumbering event (which causes all the locators of a host
to change to a new set of locators). This proposal does not attempt
| to solve the, perhaps related, problem of host mobility. However, it
| might turn out that the shim6 protocol can be a useful component,
| e.g., for route optimization in the context of host mobility.
be applicable to host mobility, although this is an area for further study.
While the shim6 WG hasn't been chartered to solve the mobility problem,
the above text in the draft states (and I think accurately so) that
shim6 can be useful for route optimization when shim6 is coupled with
Thus shim6 has some potential applicability to mobility.
Hence I think Geoff's suggestion is making a too strong statement, even
if we do not today have consensus around how mobility+multihoming will