Subject: Re: Multihoming in IPv6

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:07:57 -0500

> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>

    > Identifier/locator separation has been a topic of conversation at the
    > IETF for at least the last decade if not longer. In spite of this
    > continuous interest, an actual fruitful proposal has yet to arrive.

As you seem to have forgotten since the last time I pointed this out to you,
MobileIPv6 represents a fully-worked-out design which separates identity
from location. (The Home Address is still used as a rendezvous point, it is
true.)

    > I highly recommend attempting to do a fully worked proposal complete
    > with documents before bringing up the topic in a broad audience -- it
    > will increase your credibility markedly.

It's quite apparent that this is just a bogus excuse used by people who have
absolutely no interest in considering the concept.

Just how "fully worked" was IPv6 when the IETF picked it? Much of the
existing IPv6 protocol specs (e.g. the MIPv6 referred to above) weren't even
a gleam in someone's eye then, but apparently the extremely incomplete state
of IPv6 at that point was no bar to selecting it.

I guess you're happy to push a different, and deliberately obstructive, set
of rules when you're trying to dump on something, huh?

	Noel

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Nov 2002 10:28:19 -0500

> MobileIPv6 represents a fully-worked-out design which separates identity

I haven't forgotten. I simply disagree that it was a useful point.

> of rules when you're trying to dump on something, huh?

You need more ad hominems, Noel. A mere few lines of them are
insufficient to make people agree with you.

Perry

---

From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:16:41 -0600

> Just how "fully worked" was IPv6 when the IETF picked it?

I clearly remember ipng area directors barging into wg after wg
exhorting them to ship whatever they had done, and never mind
the rest.  "We can always fix it when we go to draft" was the
rationalization of the complaisant

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:31:46 -0500

> of IPv6 at that point was no bar to selecting it.

Well Noel, although *my* memories of NIMROD include a lot of things that in
hindsight should probably have been included into IPv6, I also recall that
it was far less well developed than the other contenders at the time.

RFC1992 has a *lot* of interesting ideas in it.  Unfortunately, it was only
a routing architecture, and came out in August 1996, while RFC1883 through
1887 came out in December 1995, and included IP header formats, addressing
architectures, and ICMPv6 and DNS extensions as well.

I have to admit wondering what progress in ASIC design has happened over the
last 6-8 years, and whether the original objection to variable-length addresses
(that high-end routers needed fixed header lengths for efficiency) would still
apply today....
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech