Subject: Re: Start running

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:29:40 -0500

> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>

    > the 8+8 experience was that you have to go a long way into the
    > details to find out if a solution is really useable.

No. It was instantly clear to people who are used to thinking at an
architectural level that the 8+8 approach (as outlined by Mo) would do what
he wanted, but had two areas of concern:

- how to protect the binding between location and address
- for "full-on" 8+8 (as originally posited by Mo), where/how the RG was
added/modified

Solutions to the first problem were instantly obvious (either don't allow a
change in the binding for the duration of a connection, or crptographically
secure it). I will concede that solutions to the second problem weren't as
obvious, and I'm not sure this was ever looked at thoroughly.

Later discussion served to illuminate these points a bit (although not in
the case of the famed analysis I-D, which was severely flawed), but not in
any significant way.

There were also other areas of what I will call "interest", which are to
say areas where 8+8 offered the *potential* of improved functionality (over
the baseline IPv4/v6 architecture), provided appropriate mechanisms could
be developed.

An example would be using 8+8 as part of a mobility solution - you still
have to deal with all the tricky bits like "what happens if you want to
contact a mobile host and the current identity/location binding you have
for it is not current".

It's only when you look at the mechanisms needed to handle that case
(mechanisms which will depend on how you handle other things) that you can
decide whether that that case is not worth solving - i.e. that the
mechanism is too complex/expensive compared to the cost of just ignoring
that case.

It should be self-obvious that only when you have detailed mechanisms in
hand can you evaluate whether the mechanisms used to handle particular
cases are cost-effective.

Perhaps this is more what you were thinking of in your comments above?

	Noel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:42:15 +0100

Noel, I agree with what you say about the facts, but I think
it did amount to a technical "deep dive". Unfortunately, we never
resurfaced.

  Brian