Subject: [RRG] Question about Six/One host and router

From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:45:22 +0300

Hello Christian!

Thank you for good write-ups and updates to Six/One proposal. I was
wondering how do you see the host based approach of
draft-vogt-rrg-six-one-01.txt fitting with the unilateral mode in
http://users.piuha.net/chvogt/pub/2008/vogt-2008-six-one-router-design.p
df? In the later document you do not seem to discuss the host based
approach. However, it looks to me that if a host is performing the
address rewrites of Six/one in  the local network then the remote
network believes that it should be in the unilateral mode unless the
bilateral/unilateral bit/header is not conveyed by the Six/one host. I
also notice that the six-one-01.txt draft is expired which could explain
why the six/one capable host functionality is not mentioned in the other
document.

Best regards
Hannu   

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:31:42 +0300

Hi Hannu,

thanks for the good question.  In the scenario you are describing,
(host-based) Six/One would only see the single PI address presented to
it by (network-based) Six/One Router.  Therefore, hosts would simply
not use Six/One in edge networks that run Six/One Router.

BTW, the same applies to all host-based multi-homing protocols, be it
Six/One, Shim6, HIP, ILNP, etc.

Regarding the expiry of six-one-01:  I should resubmit this document
in paper format, so that it does not expire.  Please consider it an
active document anyway.

Best,
- Christian

On Jul 21, 2008, at 14:45, Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:

> http://users.piuha.net/chvogt/pub/2008/vogt-2008-six-one-router-design
> .p df? In the later document you do not seem to discuss the host based
> also notice that the six-one-01.txt draft is expired which could
> explain why the six/one capable host functionality is not mentioned in
> the other document.