Hi Ryuji,
El 18/03/2005, a las 19:43, Ryuji Wakikawa escribió:
Hello Margaret
I just subscribed to list and may miss some background of this discussion.
some comments.
On 2005/03/19, at 1:56, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Thierry,
Another one is saying that "initially the WG will focus only on site multihoming" but "will later investigate the impact on exisiting protocols, particularly mobility related ones such as MIPv6, NEMO, FMIPv6, HMIPv6".
I would actually be bit stronger than this and say that the intiial shim6 work should have a goal of being compatible with existing mobility solutions, such as MIP6 and NEMO. I think that we should take a similar goal regarding transport protocols, such as TCP, UDP and SCTP.
It might (or might not) be the subject of later work to optimize the interactions between shim6 and MIP6 and/or to develop new mobility solutions based on shim6.
Interactions between shim6 and MIP6 are necessary, when SHIM6 becomes RFC.
BUT, SHIM6 should not be solo solution to achieve end/site multihoming.
Indeed, it's also important to look at possible multihoming solutions for
MIP6 or NEMO protocol in "other" WG, maybe MIP6, Monami, NEMO.
Since SHIM6 and MIP6/NEMO are very similar design concept (to me),
it indicates that MIP6/NEMO are also capability to support site/end-multihoming by itself.
Regards, marcelo
MIP6 already has a unique address (HoA),
It's not big changes to MIP6 to bind multiple CoAs to the HoA. It's same for MR, too.
regards, ryuji