Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]

On 4-jul-04, at 11:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Question to the WG: given the current state of HIP, do we
> want to consider dependency on HIP as

> a) acceptable
> b) unacceptable?

Unless I'm mistaken HIP is still work in progress so that doesn't help. 
Apart from that I have two concerns: the identifier space is flat, 
which can create problems such as with referrals, and HIP as it is 
today requires the use of IPsec, which adds processing and bandwidth 
overhead whether or not this is desired or appropriate for a certain 
communication session.

This leads me to believe that using HIP as-is isn't a very good idea 
for multi6, but it's certainly conceivable that a good multihoming 
solution could be created based largely on HIP.