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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Yep. I don't think Kurtis and I have any problem with listing IPv4 applicability
as something to think about. We just don't want it to accidentally become
a firm decision criterion.

   Brian

Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> 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