RE: fragmenting the discussion space

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

Agree but the devil is in the details as you know.  Getting shims
deployed in Linux and BSD is one thing getting them deployed in products
is a completely different manner and implementation analysis and effect
will be mandatory for consideration.  I will be able to help on that
front.  I still believe if SCTP was deployed problem is solved.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@zurich.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:53 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: avri@psg.com; shim6
> Subject: Re: fragmenting the discussion space
> 
> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
>