Re: multi6-functional-dec and re-homing

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

John, I don't understand.

If neither end is shim6-capable, it is resoundingly out
of scope.

If only one end is shim6-capable, we can't run shim6, so
we have to revert to mono-homing.

   Brian

john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
> 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