Re: fragmenting the discussion space

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

I think I would assert that shim6 does *not* change
any fundamentals of addressing or routing (in particular
it doesn't create a genuine id/loc split and it doesn't
change the route aggregation model). The same is true
of SCTP, by the way. So this particular model for multihoming
doesn't seem to be all that radical to me.

   Brian

Bound, Jim wrote:
> Mobility is orthogonal to the solution for multihoming.
> /jim 
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-shim6@psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On 
> > Behalf Of avri@psg.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:18 AM
> > To: shim6
> > Subject: Re: fragmenting the discussion space
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I can understand that excluding some of the related issues makes a 
> > discussion easier.  But isn't one of the reasons we have fragmented 
> > solutions and lack a coherent architecture due to the fact 
> > that we have 
> > not yet learned to discuss complex issues including all of 
> > the related 
> > threads?
> >
> > In many cases, ignoring the details to get a quick solution out is 
> > reasonable.  In the case of changing the basic behavior of IP and of 
> > the addressing architecture, this seems to me to be unwise.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> > On 15 mar 2005, at 08.58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 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.