Subject: Re: Mandating Route Optimization

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 14:10:10 +0200

At Fri, 31 May 2002 19:54:03 +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> 
> 	then we will have two separate set of IPv6 nodes - without mobile-ipv6
> 	and with mobile-ipv6, and they cannot even ping each other.
> 	do you feel it acceptable?

I'll leave the specific issue (whether MIPv6 should be a MUST) to
those who have been tracking this more closely than I have, but
addressing the more general question that's lurking here: yes, this
sort of thing will happen, and it will be bad, and we will have to
deploy updates, and we will move on.  We've done it before (eg: IPv4
CIDR, or, if you want to go further back, IPv4 subnets and before that
IPv4 address classes other than class A).  It's annoying, but the
alternative is to wait for all the ducks to be in a row, and those
quackers just won't stand still.

"The software isn't finished until the last user is dead."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 17:45:12 -0700

Okabe-san,

Good observation. I believe we have the rough concensus (in the MIP
group at least). The running code is needed yet.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "OKABE Nobuo" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Mandating Route Optimization

> From: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Mandating Route Optimization
> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:54:03 +0900
>
> > >But we can not, now or ever, allow considerations of existing
implementations
> > >conformance state affect the decisions about what new
implementations
> > >should be required to implement.
> >
> > i'm very unhappy about the delay of mobile-ipv6 spec.  it should
have
> > defined home address option, set it in stone, and then work on other
> > things.  implementers cannot support (human resource-wise) drafts
> > that drastically change content every time the new version appears.
> > even if that technology is a good one, this way that won't deploy.
>
> How should we apply the IETF motto, e.g. "rough consensus and running
code",
> (especially latter words) in this case?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> If mip6 people shows experience and validity about route optimization
> based upon running code, we will be able to have more productive
> discussion.
>
> thanks,
>
> ---- nobuo

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 18:37:52 -0700

So there seems to be some confusion about my statements concerning route
optimization, expressed to me in private email by some WG members.

Let me clarify that they are being made with my WG member hat on, both
in MIP and IPNG. My IAB hat remains on the hat tree. :-)

Sorry for any confusion.

            jak

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:58:20 -0700

Hello James,

In addition to whatever private mail expressions you may have received,
I should point out that it is highly inappropriate for working group members

in one working group to supply possibly biased information about the
general state of consensus in another working group.  I would say that
the discussion is far from settled.  In fact we are in the middle of it.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 19:53:50 -0700

Hello Charles,

> the discussion is far from settled.  In fact we are in the middle of
it.

No disagreement about where the discussion is, everything is completely
open.

Also, you are correct in that it is up to the WG chairs to judge whether
WG concensus has been met or not. Folks should check with the MIP group
chairs for the status there.

Now, about implementation. Are you aware of any implementations for the
new security algorithm? If there are any, what is the state of their
interoperability?

            jak