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

Re: Review comments on draft-ietf-shim6-proto-03.txt

Yes Spencer, I was indeed thinking about the additional packet overhead of the shim6 header and the additional processing overhead in the hosts, and the slightly higher overhead in processing any associated ICMP messages.
i.e. it _could_ be that "all other things being equal in terms of locator preference" the ULID locator pair, if viable, should be considered as the highest pref locataor pair"
Alternatively, it could be an implementation matter and, as is the case in this draft, a matter left unstated in the specification (and left as an implementation decision). 

regards,


  Geoff




At 12:37 AM 17/01/2006, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I'm not sure what the "costs" are in this statement. Are we just saying that we're balancing the processing time to figure out that we no longer have to encapsulate against the encapsulation overhead? or are you thinking of something else? 

Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:pierre@baume.org>Pierre Baume
To: <mailto:gih@apnic.net>Geoff Huston
Cc: <mailto:shim6@psg.com>shim6@psg.com ; <mailto:erik.nordmark@sun.com>erik.nordmark@sun.com ; <mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es>marcelo@it.uc3m.es 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: Review comments on draft-ietf-shim6-proto-03.txt

Hi Geoff and all,

On 1/16/06, Geoff Huston <<mailto:gih@apnic.net>gih@apnic.net> wrote:
[...]

> 9 - section 11 - Sending ULP payloads
>
> As a meta consideration here, is there any logical reason to prefer the
> initial ULIDs as locators?
For what it's worth, I don't think that this belongs within the protocol. The protocol should make it possible (maybe via a negotiation), but the decision needs to be left to the hosts (and their parameters/options). They might want it in some cases and in some cases not. It depends on the 'costs' associated with the ULID pairs. 

Pierre.