RE: fragmenting the discussion space

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

I strongly agree with this decision and sorry I could not make Friday
BOF I had to be at customers Friday in St. Louis so left Thurs night.
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-shim6@psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On 
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:59 AM
> To: shim6
> Subject: fragmenting the discussion space
> 
> This thread shows fairly clearly why the BOF co-chairs
> excluded mobility: we wanted shim6 to focus on a concrete
> solution space, not to re-open old debates that we finally
> got past in multi6.
> 
>      Brian
> 
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > On 14-mrt-05, at 21:02, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > 
> >> It strikes me that mobility vs. multihoming is not benefiting from 
> >> similar abstraction efforts,
> > 
> > 
> > Mobility and multihoming require very different tradeoffs. Mobility 
> > needs to be able to add new addresses to existing communication 
> > sessions/associations, but it can suffer having a home agent. 
> > Multihoming absolutely can't depend on a home agent, but it doesn't 
> > really need to add new addresses to existing sessions/associations.
> > 
> > Now if you are about to suggest a mechanism that can add 
> new addresses 
> > but doesn't need a home agent, and is sufficiently 
> light-weight that it 
> > won't overload the support lines, batteries in mobile 
> devices or the 
> > user's willingness to wait for something to happen after 
> clicking, we'll 
> > be happy to listen.
> > 
> >> nevermind the likely artificial distinction between IPv4 
> and IPv6 on 
> >> this topic
> > 
> > 
> > We don't even have enough IPv4 addresses to give everyone 
> _one_ address, 
> > let alone two or more... IPv4 is is dead. If it turns out 
> we can dress 
> > up the corpse with a shim4 layer, fine. If not, no big loss.
> > 
> >> and nevermind the real-world transition difficulties 
> created by any 
> >> suggestion that NATs much change.
> > 
> > 
> > Did I mention that IPv4 was dead?
> > 
> >> Does it bother anyone that we are marching down a path 
> that our next 
> >> decade or longer will require support for at least:
> > 
> > 
> >> 1. IPv4 mobile
> > 
> > 
> > Huh?
> > 
> >> 2. IPv6 mobile
> > 
> > 
> > Ok, I'll buy this one but it would be nice if someone bothered to 
> > implement it first.
> > 
> >> 3. IPv6 multihoming
> > 
> > 
> > People are actually waiting for this one.
> > 
> >> 4. TCP multihoming
> > 
> > 
> > What are you talking about?
> > 
> >> 5. SCTP multihoming
> > 
> > 
> > Nice try, but it comes up short in many respects.
> > 
> >> I notice that my windows desktop has pretty awful performance with 
> >> anything less than 512MB of memory.
> > 
> > 
> >> It would be nice not to march the Internet stack down the path of 
> >> requiring that much for my mobile phone.
> > 
> > 
> > Exactly. So we have to be careful about requiring strong crypto for 
> > basic functionality such as multihoming.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>