Subject: [Hipsec] A concrete HIP WG & RG proposal as feed for thought

From: [email-masked] (Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student))
Date: Mon Dec 1 23:51:02 2003

>Most of the time, we've ignored this distinction, but if we're hoping
>for something that switches links faster than BGP4 converence times,
>we aren't duplicating multi6 (at least not what multi6 is chartered to
>do).
 
If i take the above statement at face value, multi6 should only consider 
network-level solution i.e doing fail-over at bgp convergence scale. But, 
it is considering proposals at all levels. In IPv4, you do multi-homing 
at routing level (as it is the only scalable model given address space 
constraints.) But, IPv6 provides an oppurtunity to find more scalable 
model beyond the network level. In a recent multi6 post, folks are 
supporting for the transport level solution with a fail-over at RTT time 
scale rather than convergence time scale. In BGP routing system, fail-down 
latency is at the order of 3-15 minutes; whereas, fail-over can be 10-20
sec(given, route flap damping, ghost flushing and default hold timer 
settings.) 
 
In short, gabriel's wish list for the RG i.e "Should we not encourage 
looking at other variants of id/loc separation or even id/loc relationship
(separation is just one possible such relationship)" is within the charter 
of multi6; which prompted my original reply.

I agree with you that site and host multi-homing has some issues; But, what 
is the difference between site and host multi-homing from a id/loc split 
perspective (use of look-up system for referral etc.)?

---

From: [email-masked] (gabriel montenegro)
Date: Tue Dec 2 02:04:01 2003

> of multi6; which prompted my original reply.

Precisely because I see some overlap in multi6 and related
topics in HIP BoF, MOBIKE, mip{4,6,shop}, (anything else? )
that I think it should be ok for the IRTF to encourage
thinking in this space. Even if the overlap is complete
(which I doubt), the constraints and objectives are
different. multi6 is a WG. They MUST be expeditious
and decide on something in short order (as I'm pleased
to see the chairs driving towards). A WG has less luxury
than a RG for exploring. I'm suggesting that
the IRTF should allow this to continue, and
limiting it to be "the HIP RG" does not seem to accomplish that.

-gabriel