[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI

At 08:13 PM 29/11/2005, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>Salman Asadullah wrote:
> >
> > You seem to be far away from the ground realities.
> >
> > Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real
> > issues for a good reason.
>
>Neither Multi6 nor SHIM6 are even in an draft RFC state yet

Multi6 produced 5 WG drafts, all of which have been published as RFCs You 
can (and probably should) read through RFCs 3582, 4116, 4177, 4219, and 4218

SHIM6 is working on the following drafts - again I would recommend that you 
read though all of them:... 
draft-ietf-shim6-app-refer,  draft-ietf-shim6-applicability, 
draft-ietf-shim6-arch, draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection, 
draft-ietf-shim6-hba, draft-ietf-shim6-proto, 
and  draft-ietf-shim6-reach-detect.


>  and to be
>workable they'd have to be implemented on every end-host out there.
>That is every operating system in sufficient existence.  That puts IPv6
>even further in the already distant future considering common OS upgrade
>and replacement cycles.

yep - any form of locator / identity split is such a basic shift in the 
architectural model used by IP that changes to the stack are required. This 
is the case in mobility, nomadism, ad-hoc networking and this form of 
multi-homing. If you want agile locators and any form of persistence in 
endpoint identifiers then you are not going to get that without changes to 
the stack. Now if you are arguing that the deployed base of IPv6 is so 
large that further changes are impossible in this particular technology due 
to the inertia of the deployed IPv6 base, then that's certainly an 
interesting perspective, and not one I've heard all that often so far. If 
you are saying that this will take time to develop and deploy, then you are 
probably right, and a model that can use incremental deployment using a 
conventional initial context followed by a capability exchange to explore 
if there is mutual support for this form of communication capability, then 
you may well be onto something interesting. Although I'd hasten to add that 
this is the approach being taken within the SHIM6 architecture.

>Second this doesn't solve the renumbering problem.  Renumbering is not
>just giving hosts new IP addresses but alost managing DNS and Firewalls.
>No even remotely workable and scaleable solution has been presented yet.

I'm not sure I agree with you about the DNS and renumbering - its not a 
clearly defined space, and the implications relating to the DNS are not 
clearly understood in communication models where feasible locator sets are 
dynamically exchanged rather than always loaded into third party rendezvous 
points, as in the DNS model.


>So nice try but no cookie.

Thank you,

    Geoff