Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Re: HAO and BE processing will be mandated

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:25:32 -0700 (PDT)

[email-masked] writes:
 > If the intent is to support mobility in IPv6 networks as an integral
 > aspect of the protocol, I believe the HAO processing is a MUST. I
 > believe the Mobile IP WG is of this opinion.

   That sure hasn't been my read of the consensus.
   In fact, the consensus seems to be exactly
   opposite.

		Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:45:36 -0500

Hello Itojun,

>	i'm very concerned about the use of MUST for HAO since
>	mobile-ip6 draft 18 is trying to mandate new thing to all IPv6
>	(RFC2460) implementations. 
>	SHOULD for HAO is okay for me, but MUST for HAO is unacceptable at
>	this stage of RFC2460-based IPv6 deployment.

If the intent is to support mobility in IPv6 networks as an integral
aspect of the protocol, I believe the HAO processing is a MUST. I
believe the Mobile IP WG is of this opinion. If the IESG and the IPv6
WGs disagree with this opinion when the Mobile IPv6 spec goes to IETF
last call we can deal with it. But for now I am in favor of keeping
the MUST for the HAO processing for all IPv6 nodes.

I am of the opinion that the scale of IPv6 deployment today is still
in its infancy and the impacts associated with mandating the HAO
processing on all IPv6 nodes is far less than maybe two years from
now.

>itojun

-Basavaraj

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:54:20 +0900

>processing on all IPv6 nodes is far less than maybe two years from

	here are a little (incomplete) list of RFC2460-compliant
	implementations that does not speak/understand HAO:

	JunOS, ExtremeWare, MacOS 10.2, all FreeBSD since 4.0, all NetBSD
	since 1.5, all OpenBSD since 2.7, Solaris beyond 2.7, Linux since 2.2,
	all BSD/OS since 4.1.

	and any product that ships with these operating systems (note that
	many uses *BSD in embedded products such as printers).

	and i would like to stress that it isn't matter of configuration, but
	matter of codebase (you can't say "well, they are not configured with
	IPv6").  and as you may aware, people do run older revisions of those
	operating systems (there still are Win3.1, you know).

	if it isn't enough to convince you otherwise, i think you are in
	a dream world.

itojun

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:40:58 -0700

you are both right. it was closed as 'Adopted' after there was concensus
on the mailing list. see, issue 45 at
http://www.piuha.net/~jarkko/publications/mipv6/MIPv6-Issues.html

it was reopened (unfortunately) as issue 53.

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:52:31 -0700

Itojun,

>         if it isn't enough to convince you otherwise, i think you are in

dream world?? thats nonsense.

I also think the current installed IPv6 base is going to be 
*insignificant* compared to the IPv6 base that is expected.

Vijay

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:48:24 +0700

Date:        Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:54:20 +0900
    From:        [email-masked]
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | 	here are a little (incomplete) list of RFC2460-compliant
  | 	implementations that does not speak/understand HAO:

This is a totally irrelevant argument.   It simply doesn't matter
which current implementations do or do not understand the option
when it comes to deciding if it should be specified as a MUST or not.

That question is relevant when designing the option, and its processing
in the first place though.

That is, someone has to decide what happens when a new option is seen
at an old node that doesn't understand it.   There the choices are
"too bad, old node can't participate", "old node will just ignore this
and do things this other way - not optimal, but works", or "this option
will be useless with all those old nodes, there's no point having it at
all" (perhaps others).

Here, from what I have seen, that question isn't an issue - it seems (I
believe) that the "old nodes will work sub-optimally" is the approach
taken - that is, they don't get communications denied (which they would
if this was a new header) nor is the option just considered worthless to
have at all.

On the other hand, when deciding whether new implementations MUST or SHOULD
implement some option, the question is entirely related to the benefit vs
the cost of the option processing, for nodes that can & would implement it
(or might decide not to).   What old code, shipped before the option was
invented, might do is clearly irrelevant - that's not going to implement it,
it cannot.

Continuing to talk about the existing non HAO-supporting code base when
deciding MUST vs SHOULD isn't helping anyone.   If your point in there
somewhere is that mobile-ip won't work with old nodes, and that is
important enough to worry about, then the solution would have to be to
redesign the protocol, not change one compliance word.   But I don't think
that's it - it seems to be more related to whether all those old 
implementations would be conforming to a standard that didn't exist when
they were shipped.   And the answer is that of course they won't be, and
who cares about that anyway?

kre

ps: this message is not stating an opinion on whether MUST or SHOULD is
the right label for this option, just about this one argument point.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:34:48 -0700

> *insignificant* compared to the IPv6 base that is expected.

yes.  and the V4 base is growing fast too.  so?

the question is what works best.  it would be good if we
focussed on that.

randy

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:21:07 -0700

> the question is what works best.  it would be good if we

exactly. couldnt agree more. 

but I keep hearing from the KAME folks again and again
"we already have IPv6 implementations which do not understand
HAO, we dont want HAO mandated" (which makes no sense to me).

Vijay

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 04:28:33 +0900

>HAO, we dont want HAO mandated" (which makes no sense to me).

	MUST for HAO is self-contradictory at best.  if HAO is a MUST, we don't
	need bidir-tunnel (since it won't be used).  if we have bidir-tunnel,
	HAO is okay with SHOULD.

	i don't want a pie-throwing match, but it seems that you want it...
	i keep hearing from you "we can ignore currently-deployed IPv6
	codebase" which is total nonsense (or total ignorance of the current
	situation) to me.  IPv6 is not a toy in your lab any more.  we have
	people depend on it, we have serious IPv6 commercial network operation.

	i suggest to leave the SHOULD/MUST decision to jari, the main editor.

itojun

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:13:41 -0700

Itojun,

>         need bidir-tunnel (since it won't be used).  if we have bidir-tunnel,

it is a MUST implement, not MUST use. you might not be able to use
it all the time. so we have bidirectional tunneling (when you 
cant/dont want to do Route Optimization or triangle routing). 
got it??

>         codebase" which is total nonsense (or total ignorance of the current

where did you get that idea from? Mobile nodes can have sessions
with IPv6 nodes, which dont implement HAO. its there in the
current spec. got it??

look at Robert Elz's answer. I dont have to say anything more.

>         i suggest to leave the SHOULD/MUST decision to jari, the main editor.

this is funny. the WG decides and Jari edits it in. maybe the WG
chairs can clarify this to you.

Vijay