[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]



Margaret Wasserman wrote:

Hi Brian,


I saw this question:

At 11:16 AM +0200 7/4/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Question to the WG: given the current state of HIP, do we
want to consider dependency on HIP as

a) acceptable
b) unacceptable?


And this answer:

There really wasn't much response to this one, but my reading of the
sparse consensus was against solutions that depend on the deployment
of HIP (but that does not exclude taking ideas or components of HIP).


But, I am not really sure what you were asking or what the answer means...

I do not think that we should, a priori, assume that a multi6 solution will
depend on HIP, NOID, MAST or any other specific mechanism/proposal.
However, I also don't think that HIP should be considered out-of-scope for
consideration as a solution (any more than NOID, MAST or others).

So which way would I answer the question?

Well, that's exactly why I summarized as I did - as so often, the question was too binary.

Brian