Re: [mobile-ip] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-00.txt

[Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
 and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
 post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
 message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
 address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
 automatically accepted. ]

Soliman Hesham wrote:
>  > However, unfortunately I do not personally agree at all with
>  > the recommendations in the draft:
>  > 
>  > To me, it looks like such a solution might be workable, but the
>  > resulting protocols might be very complex.  Too complex, in my
>  > humble opinion.
>
> => This week we plan on submitting at least one solution
> and we can assess complexity from there. But I'd like to 
> emphasise that we are not aiming to have one protocol that
> will solve everything. Even now, MIPv4 cannot provide all
> of the features in MIPv6. I'd completely agree with the 
> complexity argument if that were our goal, but we only
> aim to have a transitional solution. 
I see.  However, I'd still like to see a non-biased problem
statement, stating the problem and not skewed towards some
specific kind of a solution.

>  > HIP provides already now an implemented, demonstrated alternativity.
>  > It does not only allow seamless mobility between IPv4 and IPv6, but
>  > it also integrates multi-address multi-homing with mobility.
...
>  > Hence, I would request that you drop the Mobile IP specific
>  > recommendations from the problem statement draft, or at least
>  > acknowledge that there are other approaches that may be able
>  > to solve the problem in a different and perhaps better way.
>
> => Sure there are other approaches. However, our limiting factor
> is existing deployment. We want to deal with existing problems
> on the Internet that can be solved gradually.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with respect to a problem
statement, as I wrote above.

OTOH, if you want to restrict the problem statement to
incremental solutions, please state so already in the very
beginning.  That is, either make clear that your problem statement
is a very narrowly scoped problem statement, aiming at providing
integrated IPv4/v6 mobility basing on existing deployment and
deployed protocols, or remove the MIP specific recommendations.

In other words, I can see two different problem statements: one
focusing on incremental changes based on deployed protocols, and
another one that takes a look just at the problem, being not so
much concerned with existing deployment.  IMHO, right now at
least I remain confused which one your draft refers to.
(Maybe I just read the draft too quickly.)

> At this moment in time [HIP] is an idea that was prototyped and
> we all know the time it takes from conception to deployment. 
I completely agree.

I just want to have a clear scope for the problem statement.

As a side issue, I want to remind people, especially in the
light of the Vienna IAB open meeting, that there are a number of
complex architectural problems that we need to solve at some
point of time, and as we proceed to solve them, some of the
hard problems that people currently use much effort to solve
may suddenly completely change their nature.

--Pekka Nikander