On 18-apr-2006, at 13:50, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Now we hear that anything like 8+8 is infeasiable because it's
incompatible
with the installed base (all 17 of them).
18 if the IETF would finally start eating its own dog food...
Let me observe once again that 8+8/GSE is incomplete because it
doesn't provide a secure binding between the id and the loc, which is
very necessary in a few places, and because it doesn't have any
failover mechanisms. So even if compatibility with existing IPv6
wouldn't be an issue, 8+8/GSE would need significant amounts of work.
But in the IETF compatibility with existing deployments is
historically considered important (and even though IPv6 isn't
deployed very widely, it's already in a lot of software and even some
hardware so changing it now would create more problems than
deployment figures suggest).
If you add security, failover and backward compatibility to 8+8/GSE
you get something that looks a whole lot like shim6. The only part
that's missing is rewriting locators by routers, which wouldn't be
extremely hard to add to shim6 but since today's routers can't do it
shim6 needs to work without this capability first.
And while I'm observing, the recent exchange between you and Keith is
exactly the kind of stuff that makes making fundamental changes in
our architecture and/or base protocols so hard as we saw in multi6:
the routing, DNS, transport and application people all want someone
else to suffer the pain caused by something new.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf