[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: Review comments on draft-ietf-shim6-proto-03.txt]
On 16 feb 2006, at 19.28, Erik Nordmark wrote:
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
to propagate. But it is not a goal to try to make communication
survive a renumbering event (which causes all the locators of a
to change to a new set of locators). This proposal does not
| to solve the, perhaps related, problem of host mobility.
| 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
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 host mobility.
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 evolve.
<any hats off>
I do make the observation that our charter says :
o Compatibility will remain for existing mobility mechanisms. It will
be possible to use Mobile IPv6 on a node that also supports Shim6.
However, any optimizations or advanced configurations are out of
scope for shim6.
So I am kind of inclined to agree with Geoff :-)
Although I can't say I feel strongly either...
- kurtis -