On 2009-04-05 16:53, Lixia Zhang wrote:
On Apr 4, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If I look at both Geoff's and Olivier's (relayed) comments,
it's clear to me that there is work to be done.
I agree that the address-pair selection issue is broader
than just shim6 (and is related to other things, such as
egress router selection). But there may still be some work
do here, on 'SHIM6 Requirements for Address Pair Selection',
even if the actual specification belongs in 6MAN.
I agree that there is commonality of interest with multipath
transport, but it's far from clear to me that there is
actual overlap in the mechanisms; SHIM6 is a layer 3 shim,
and multipath transport sure seems like a layer 4 shim,
which was a direction that MULTI6 explicitly choose not to
I wondered how to interpret the phrase "actual overlap" in the above...
yes one solution works at transport and the other works at layer 3, so
yes in terms of layers they are not at the same place.
But in terms of goals, would you agree that their goals overlap?
Sort of. But the shim6 goals were clearly aimed at RFC3582,
whereas I understand the goals of multipath transport to be
more aimed at load sharing, with failover as a secondary effect.
However, the mechanisms are so different that I don't see anything
to gain by sticking them in the same room at the IETF.
That said, it's clear that the union of Geoff's and Olivier's
messages add up to a program of work, basically to find out if
SHIM6 is deployable and useful. I think it would be a shame
to pause before doing that.
to see if I got it right: are you suggesting that we should first "find
out if SHIM6 is deployable and useful", before making the decision on
whether the WG should go dormant?
No, I'm suggesting we should recharter the WG now, with the items
that Geoff and Olivier describe, most of which speak to making
shim6 (more) useful. Actual deployment work items would fall
under v6ops, I suppose.
if so, how does one go about to find that out?
no matter how, I suppose this could be done quick?