Re: modules of a mh solution (was RE: New multi6 draft: WIMP)

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

Kurt,

KEL> We also had this discussed sometime during the autumn and from what I
KEL> remember, most seemed to think that mobility and mutli6 required 
KEL> solutions with different paramters - to the point where the solutions
KEL> would be different solutions.

 This sufficiently at odds with my own sense of the solution space
 that I really would appreciate any elaboration of the details folks
 can conjure up.

 So far, my sense is that there is a very large amount of overlap
 between the two problem spaces.  No, not 100%, but more than enough
 to justify seeking a single solution for the common set of
 requirements.

 Multihoming is about multiple addresses.  Mobility is about multiple
 addresses.  The structure, predictability and timing of address
 management for the two differ.  This might mean they need entirely
 different mechanisms, but so far it looks like they can do fine with
 just one.


 
KEL> are you arguing that as part of any solution, we should either include
KEL> a address selection / pairing algorithm or we should make that an
KEL> "external" requirement to be solved by a separate protocol or by 
KEL> someone else?

Any initial specification needs to provide a complete capability.  So
I am arguing that we distinguish between near-term "simplistic"
choices that provide initial utility, versus longer-term, extended
choices that can be pursued outside of the initial critical path.
 
d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>