Subject: Re: [arch-d] Some notes about HIP and SHIM6 (was Re: On identifiers: what is virtual and what...)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:39:54 -0500 (EST)

> From: Andrew McGregor <[email-masked]>

    > .. what HIP and SHIM6 both give you is the ability to assert that
    > something accessible at location A is also accessible at locations B
    > through ...
    > .. but the core of what the protocols provide is very similar.

Yes and no, I think - but I kind of phased out on the finer details of HIP
and SHIM6, so the following comments may not be accurate, and I'd appreciate
any corrections to possibly mistaken impressions.

My impression is that although to an initial glance (if you consider a few
"how do I do thing X" cases) they do look like they provide similar
capabilities (as you point out), I think that perhaps at a deeper level HIP
is more powerful, architecturally. The reason is simple: HIP brings an extra
namespace to bear, and at an architectural level that's very powerful.

Also, SHIM6 overloads one more meaning onto an existing namespace (IPv6
addresses), and, architecturally speaking, that's always bad. Yes, yes, I
know, the idea is that there will be two separate namespaces that just happen
to share a syntax. However... we all know that anytime there is the
possibility of kludging something (in this case, by treating a name from
sub-space A as if it were a name from sub-space B), someone somewhere will do
it, as a "quick hack" to solve some problem they have, and then you're in the
soup. Only with a complete separate namespace is there no possibility of
hacks that entangle (and strangle) a design.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss