Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-07-26, at 00.14, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 25-jul-04, at 20:36, Jari Arkko wrote: > >> 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. > > The way I understood Brian's question is: would it be ok to build on > HIP the same way some proposed solutions build on the DNS, ie., just > assume that it's there and that it works. > > My answer to this was that there are two issues: the first is that HIP > isn't deployed yet. This will/can be solved in time and propbably > isn't all that important in the long run. Still, building on HIP _now_ > would probably make our life more difficult. The second is that HIP as > it is today has certain properties that are undesirable for a generic > multihoming solution. (Larger packets and mandatory crypto.) This > would be like using the DNS but the DNS takes 15 minutes to resolve a > query: you can build such a solution, but it doesn't address the user > needs very well.. > > So basically what we're saying is that we only want to use HIP if it's > modified to our liking. :-) This isn't unfair as we want all the > solutions to be modified to our liking. (-: I agree with what Iljitsch is saying, but it might also be important to note if we want to give HIP special consideration compared to other proposals, as HIP is actually a independent standard being built. I don't think that either though. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQQW85qarNKXTPFCVEQLX0wCgsbI7hFIv8Ha4gpzwzZ/UyAx+bmgAoIqi /le94VRc4x9eK+aSswK1URal =SGN7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----