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

Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set

To: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
Subject: Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:04:54 -0700
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, "Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)" <jason.schiller@mci.com>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, shim6-wg <shim6@psg.com>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509281225470.3722@sheen.jakma.org>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0509221614300.28499-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509230228280.3483@sheen.jakma.org> <433986D8.1080603@zurich.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509281225470.3722@sheen.jakma.org>

Shim6 is not 8+8; the address changes take place in the end system.


There is not as yet any technical reason why this should be so.



No, but there's a whopper of a political reason.

If we've either misread the politics or the playing field has shiftedand 8+8 is now a politically tractable solution, we should definitelyexplore it. It is, architecturally, a much cleaner solution.


Tony

Follow-Ups:
- Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

References:
- Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set
  - From: "Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)" <jason.schiller@mci.com>
- Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set
  - From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
- Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
- Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set
  - From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>

Prev by Date: Re: delay as a metric, aggregation
Next by Date: Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set
Previous by thread: Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set
Next by thread: Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread