Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]

[Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>]

Let's leave the legaleze out of this, but (hopefully) the document 
contains some questions that can be used to evaluate such minor issues 
as deployability, security, performance, and generality.  The methods 
used might cause some conflict between these objectives.  That's okay. 
We can decide which ones are important when we understand which 
tradeoffs are being made.

Eliot
ps: I'm leaving the "for instances..." out for brevity's sake.


Tony Li wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I thought that the point of this document was things to think about,
> not a set of decision criteria.  If it is a set of criteria, then aren't
> we duplicating the requirements draft?  No, I don't want to reopen that,
> but what I *AM* suggesting is that Eliot's list is literally a list
> of discussion questions.  As such, I think that this is a fine question
> to ask.
>
> If you're elevating this draft as anything other than a set of 
> discussion questions, then we need to have a different discussion.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Tony
>
>
> |  -----Original Message-----
> |  From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@zurich.ibm.com] 
> |  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:54 AM
> |  To: Multi6
> |  Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D 
> |  ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]
> |  
> |  
> |  Pekka Savola wrote:
> |  > 
> |  > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Tony Li wrote:
> |  > > I'd submit that if it cannot be easily ported back to 
> |  IPv4, that it
> |  > > bears closer examination.  v4 and v6 are architecturally very
> |  > > similar.  Any solution that does not apply to both is either a
> |  > > kludge or is exploiting an odd property of one of the two.  In
> |  > > either case, it would bear close examination.  You know, the kind
> |  > > that you give things when the fire alarm in the building 
> |  goes off...
> |  > > ?  ;-)
> |  > 
> |  > I have to heartily disagree here.  IPv6 address *does* 
> |  have more bits.
> |  > Different problem spaces have leveraged that property 
> |  before as well,
> |  > leading to solutions which are not easily backportable to IPv4.
> |  > 
> |  > Maybe one could reword this differently: the solution beas some
> |  > thinking about if it doesn't rely on the 128bit address length of
> |  > IPv6, and is not easily IPv4-capable.
> |  
> |  Yes. But this is the IPv6 multihoming WG, so while applicability to
> |  IPv4 is an interesting question to ask, it cannot be a decision
> |  criterion.
> |  
> |  I would counter-argue against Tony in another way. If we had variable
> |  length addresses (as some people strongly suggested for IPng) a whole
> |  new class of multihoming solutions might be available. But we don't,
> |  so they aren't. Thus, you cannot argue that solutions *must* 
> |  be independent 
> |  of address length considerations.
> |  
> |  (Please don't kick off a thread on variable length addresses... at
> |  least not here.)
> |  
> |    Brian
> |  
> |