Subject: RE: [NSIS] Details about NSIS at IETF 58

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:39:14 +0200

Hi Jukka,

> Should we have one slide per draft for the background on the problem space 
> people see? One slide with the main issues each "group" feels are the 
> most important? Thath would make four slides?
> 
> We could also have a preliminary discussion on the list.

I'd like that we could discuss this on the list, a combined presentation
would be one possible solution.

br,
John

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

---

From: Xiaoming Fu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:59:05 +0100

John,

This sounds a good idea. One thing that has become clear to me is that 
although we all have some kind of idea on what mobility issues are, 
those ideas are not necessarily totally aligned (although a certain 
number of issues have been described in different ways and not 
particulalrly opposed in most cases since pre-&post-Vienna discussions).

If NSIS is going to develop something interoperable with mobility 
protocols, I think it is probably necessary to come to some reasonable 
agreement on which issues are of common concern to all and which are of 
different view for each, before we go too far into presenting "seperate" 
issues but possibly repeating many issues several times. These can 
include, but not limit to, all the bullets that have come out of the 
existing discussions (e.g., host IP change, route change, IP-in-IP 
encapsulation, crossover router discovery, routing interface, etc.). For 
example, it seems to me more or less at least a consensus has been 
reached that working with mobility/route change is more of an NTLP 
concern rather than simply an NSLP issue. However, there are many other 
issues have not converged. For instance, there was a concern that flow 
ID should be able to used to route NSIS packets, but very likely, it can 
be problematic or inefficient in mobility and tunneling scenarios; we 
may instead rely on NTLP session ID together with the discovery 
functionality. Perhaps the outcome of the Minneapolis meeting would be 
not so much a direct solution, but to clarify a number of things.

Best regards,
Xiaoming