Re: Mutli6 meeting in Vienna

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

> > Instead we will try and have an overview of solution classes. Most 
> > work seems to be done with loc/id separation and Christians 
> > host-based solutions. For the time being this is where I think we 
> > should spend time at the meeting.
> I've been trying to come up with a useful approach for this for a 
> while. We really have to get this right because if this turns out to 
> be a huge shouting match or nap time, it's the end of multi6.
I think that we will need some discussions (I don't like shouting). I 
to some extent think that is unavoidable with the number of proposals 
out there. However, after the discussions we also need to decide on the 
way forward.

> How about this: if everyone says what proposals they feel are worth 
> working on. Then we can discuss those proposals. It seems likely the 
> proposals that many people want to work on have some promise. I think 
> this is a good way to get around "this proposal sucks" "no it's great" 
> type of discussions. The other advantage is that it limits the number 
> of "active" proposals significantly. For instance, my geo stuff 
> doesn't require work but simply adoption  :-)  so there is no need to 
> go over it.
Ok, stay tuned for suggested agenda to come.

>  Mobility and HIP have their home elsewhere, so those don't have to be 
> discussed either, apart from maybe send an annotated copy of the 
> requirements to those groups to make this stuff work well with 
> multihoming.
Agreed.

> So that leaves the whole locator/identifier thing. A few questions 
> about that:
My views

> - on what layer do we want to do this?
IP

> - can we break applications?
if break=modify, we might be forced to.

> - can we break transport protocols?
see previous.

> - can we break autoconfiguration?
yes.

> - can we break IP?
yes

> - can we break IPsec?
isn't that transport?

> - where can we add state?
As little as possible.

> - can it be done without state?
Remains to be seen.

> - do we need a discovery protocol?
Discovery of?

> - do we need a negotiation protocol?
Negotiation of what?

> > Unfortunately we have some catching up to do and having all proposals 
> > presented would take up very much time, without us moving on.
> Everyone should read the drafts.
First they need to be submitted..:-)

- kurtis -