[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proposed text for charter

On 24-mrt-05, at 21:26, Geoff Huston wrote:

o Changes in the addresses that are used below the shim will be invisible
to the upper layers, which will see a fixed address (called Upper Layer
Identifier or ULID).

o ULIDs will be actual IP addresses, permitting existing applications to
continue to work unchanged, and permitting application referrals to
work, as long as the IP Addresses are available. 

Should we mention that the ULID is one of the locators explicitly?

o Compatibility will remain for existing mobility mechanisms. It will be
possible to continue using Mobile IPv6 when using Shim6 simultaneously.
However, any optimizations or advanced configurations are out of scope
for shim6.

I believe someone else already mentioned that possibly having both MIPv6 and SHIM6 engaged at the same time may be problematic. It would be good enough (not optimal of course) if the shim would take measures to avoid getting in the way of MIP, even if this means mobility and multihoming can't happen simultaneously.

o The approach is to provide an optimized way to handle a static set of
addresses, while also providing a way to securely handle dynamic
changes in the set of addresses. The dynamic changes might be useful
for future combinations of multihoming and IP mobility, but the working
group will not take on such mobility capabilities directly.

"Dynamic changes" is too ambiguous. Obviously any solution will have to be able to dynamically drop addresses. However, I don't think we should mandate the capability of dynamically add previously unknown addresses to existing sessions or associations. We know that this is hard and the usefulness of this feature almost entirely lies outside pure multihoming. So way should probably keep the option of _not_ doing this open.

MAY 05 First draft on cryptographic locators, if required 

Does this include HBA?