Re: Multi6 WG Last Call (1 of 3) draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-01.txt

El 25/10/2004, a las 6:18, <[email protected]> escribió:

> Marcelo,
>
>>> My minor substantive comments are below.
>>> Some editorial comments were sent direct to the author.
>>>
>>>> 4.2  Multi-Homing: Mobility
>>> ...
>>>>    The aspect of MIPv6 which appears to present issues in the 
>>>> context of
>>>>    multi-homing is the return routeability mechanism.  In MIPv6 
>>>> identity
>>>>    validity is periodically tested by return routeability of the
>>>>    identity address.  This regular use of a distinguished locator 
>>>> as the
>>>>    identity token cannot support return reachability in the 
>>>> multi-homing
>>>>    context in the event of extended path failure of the path that is
>>>>    associated with the identity locator.
>>>
>>> This question isn't really relevant to multi6,
>>
>> Well, lots of people claim that there is a close relation between
>> multihoming and mobility, since both problmes require changing the
>> locators and keep the identifier.
>> Since there is an available solution for mobility, it seems quite
>> natural to explore if such solution is suitable for multihoming.
>> The problem with the available solution for mobility is that the
>> security mechanism used in mip is inherently incompatible with the
>> multihoming requirements, since it is based on reaching the
>> identifier.
>>
>> so imho it is relevant to multihoming the explanation why the approach
>> used for mobility is not suitable for multihoming.
>
> I agree with Marcelo, but with the caveat that solving mobility 
> problems
> is not a goal of Multi6. Learning from mobility solutions is a good 
> thing,
> though.
>

agree

regards, marcelo

> John
>
>
------------------------------------------
Please note that my former email address
[email protected] is no longer in use
Please send mail to:
marcelo at it dot uc3m dot es
------------------------------------------