[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IETF multihoming powder: just add IPv6 and stir


On söndag, maj 4, 2003, at 22:00 Europe/Stockholm, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>



It might be good to get the word out that multi6 wants to recharter
and work on the identifier/locator thing aka GSE++ aka 6+10. Then we
can see if the pro mob is larger than the anti mob at the meeting.





I am not sure I want to say that we recharter to the GSE++ model.

...

they want to present and make their case for their solution and 
against

a GSE based approach



When people start talking loosely about "GSE" I get nervous, because 
there

are a number of (to me) independent architectural and engineering 
points that

are involved in what I think of as "GSE".



Actually. I would prefer that we



Stop talking about GSE - and start talking about a number of features 
included in a specific solution. If that is written down in a draft, 
even better.



I think that this will help us avoid the worst confusions and debates 
on non-issues.




(Indeed, there might be a danger that "GSE" means different things to
different people, but that's a *separate* problem from the one that I'm
talking about here.)



Well, maybe. Unless we solve this we will be running in circles.






As I see them, the points in "GSE" are:





1 - The basic approach to multi-homing being use of more than one 
locator

	(I think we are approaching rough consensus on this for any

	solution, not just GSE, but list it for completeness)


Agreed.




2 - Separation of location and identity, using two separate and 
distinct

	labels, one for each function

	(Again, I think we are approaching rough consensus on this for

	any solution, but list it for completeness)



I think that there might be some more work needed here before I would 
say that we are at consensus. At least that is what I take away from 
the last days discussions.




3 - Use of IPv6 addresses (or parts of them) as the namespaces for 
both of

	those two classes of identifiers

4 - Details of the identifier; two obvious options:

	A - Use of two complete IPv6 addresses, one for each kind of

	identifier, sometimes called "16+16"

	B - One IPv6 address, divided into two fields (the original being

	"8+8", but I now see mention of "6+10")

5 - Replacement of part or all of the location identifier by entities 
other

	than the endpoints of the end-end communication

	A - replacement involving the destination locator only

	B - replacement involving the source and destination locators



The above points are definitely not very clear so far, but that is also 
where we need more work done. Especially if we want to have something 
to discuss in Vienna.




Anyway, I hope this sort of framework for thinking about them is 
useful.





It is. But it would be even better if we agreed on the characteristics 
on all solutions (not to mention which solutions have been taken to the 
IETF)...



- kurtis -