[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]

To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 09:44:16 +0300
Cc: Multi6 List <multi6@ops.ietf.org>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-reply-to: <40E7CAE6.5060503@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: None
References: <6938661A6EDA8A4EA8D1419BCE46F24C0406072B@xch-nw-27.nw.nos.boeing.com> <40E7CAE6.5060503@zurich.ibm.com>
Reply-to: jari.arkko@piuha.net
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316


I did not realize we were already in the vote-for-the-solution
stage.

Anyway, I would be OK with the use of HIP as the solution
(or as some component or upgrade path of another solution).

I do agree with Iljitsch that a "light weight HIP" approach
might be something to think about. I believe HIP with ESP
replaced by a flow id (like in some of the other multi6
proposals?) should be doable.

--Jari

References:
- RE: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches
  - From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
- Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Advantages and disadvantages of using CB64 type of identifiers
Next by Date: Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
Previous by thread: Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
Next by thread: Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread