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

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>>> There really wasn't much response to this one, but my reading of the
>>> sparse consensus was against solutions that depend on the deployment
>>> of HIP (but that does not exclude taking ideas or components of HIP).
>>
>>
>>
>> But, I am not really sure what you were asking or what the answer 
>> means...
>>
>> I do not think that we should, a priori, assume that a multi6 solution 
>> will
>> depend on HIP, NOID, MAST or any other specific mechanism/proposal.
>> However, I also don't think that HIP should be considered out-of-scope 
>> for
>> consideration as a solution (any more than NOID, MAST or others).
>>
>> So which way would I answer the question?
> 
> 
> Well, that's exactly why I summarized as I did - as so often, the question
> was too binary.

I agree that the question was too binary. [But I also think
that posing the question at this time is a bit unfair on HIP.
The responses that you got were that its either OK to
use HIP or that HIP lacks feature X or Y which make
it problematic to use it. The problem is, most if not
all proposals in the category of solutions we are
considering have such deficiencies; our task is to
compose or develop a solution which overcomes these
difficulties.]

So, I think we should adopt ideas from HIP/NOID/WIMP/etc
and/or develop one of them further to fulfill all our
requirements. So, in a sense I agree with the second
part of Brian's summary -- but it applies for all of
the potential solutions we have.

But I'm not sure I understand the deployment part. I
mean I agree that we should not hold our breath in
Multi6 while HIP gets deployed. But this is again
similar in all of the solutions. Most of them (with
the possible exception of HIP and maybe some others)
would get deployed only when people install the
multi6 feature on their nodes.

--Jari