RE: multi6-functional-dec and re-homing

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Marcelo,

Are you speaking generally when we have 2 non-shim6 endpoints? If
so, we need a BCP on this, outside of the shim6 protocol.  This
seems much more like an operational issue.

If you are discussing how to do this when only 1 of the endpoints 
is shim6 aware, then I think this should be addressed in the shim6
protocol document.  

Or am I missing something?

John


> I don't know...
> I mean, on one hand, you are right, the shim protocol must 
> specify how 
> to deal with non-shim hosts. this means essentially the capability 
> detection functions of the functional dec draft.
> However, there is more that can be done in this context i suppose. I 
> mean there are some fault tolerance capabilities that can be provided 
> even though the communication is established with a non shim host. In 
> particular, it is possible to establish new communications after an 
> outage if the host withn the multihomed site is able to smartly select 
> the source address to be used for that communication. In order to do 
> this, the multihomed host needs modifications in the source address 
> selection mechanism.
> Such mechanism could also be used when establishing communications with 
> a shim node, but perhaps in this scenario superior solutions can be 
> obtained since both nodes implement the mechanism.
> So, i guess that my point is that when a non shim node is 
> involved in a 
> communication, it would be good if we did more that just  detecting 
> that the shim is not supported, but we could deploy mechanisms to 
> provide enhanced fault tolerance in this scenario.
> 
> (It could also be noted that such mechanism is likely to be much 
> simpler than the whole shim and that it will, by itself, provide some 
> degree of fault tolerance, so it may make sense to deploy it even 
> without the shim)
> 
> Makes sense?
> 
> regards, marcelo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > John
> >
> 
> 
>