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

From: "Fergie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 05:28:27 GMT

- -- [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa) wrote:

>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.

[snip]

Not meaning to sound facetious or anything, but I wonder if we
happen to be using the term "overloaded" a little too liberally
to have a useful dialogue?

What is overloaded? I mean, Noe, we all have used that term in
many, many instances and perhaps it is time we revisit what what
that might actually mean.

I know I would certainly benefit form that discussion -- first and
foremost -- before we launch into where "jacking up" and GSE (for
example) may dissect/cross the issue(s) of overloading the terms
of "routing" and "addressing" w.r.t v6.

The reason I mention this at all is that this happens to be the
topic at hand. :-)

I'll leave my personal opinion(s) out of it for the moment, only
so that we can at least agree on terminology(ies).

Cheers,

- - ferg

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

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