Re: Comments on draft-crocker-mast-proposal-00.txt

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Dave;

> HIP and LIN6 are more ambitious.

Original LIN6 proposal was primarily for mobility and was not
so ambitious. Use of ID is a way to avoid MTU problems of
mobile tunneling.

> The other issue is administrative overhead. MAST does not create any
> interesting administrative load HIP and LIN6 impose some significant new
> administration. MAST currently involves none.

LIN6 does not require any new administration than that for IPv4,
either.

The difference between LIN6 and MAST is efficiency, which is why
our team is working on LIN6 for multihoming support.

> SD> - I agree with Matataka's note that selecting an interface is not an
> SD> easy problem.
> 
> I agree.  That's why MAST says a) it's a hard problem, worthy of study, and b)
> until we understand it better, be simplistic and conservative.

Dave, it is *THE* problem (though it is a selection of an address
not an interface).

If you think you don't understand it very well, it would be wise to
be simplistic and conservative not to make any proposal.

Solving a new problem is not a conservative way of life.

							Masataka Ohta