Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

[Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>]

Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net) wrote:
> Is it the consensus of the shim6 working group that the full suite of TE
> capabilities should not be a requirement?  Or is this just the opinion of
> a few vocal people?

Jason,

I don't know what "full suite" means.

In a system with multiple prefixes per site the type of TE one can do, 
at least with current tools, is likely to be quite different than in a 
multihoming system with a single prefix per site.

For instance, if I understood GSE <draft-ietf-ipngwg-gseaddr-00.txt> it 
would also mean that something on the initiating host would have to 
select between multiple 16 byte addresses (RG+ESD).
But the support for router rewriting of the RG means that the 
communication will switch to using the RG that the routers desire.

Have you or somebody else though about whether this would be sufficient 
for TE? Or would there be a need to be able to influence the destination 
locator that is used for the first packet?

   Erik