[Hipsec] RE: Updated HIP mobility & multi-homing draft

[[e-mail] (marcelo bagnulo)]

> Ah yes. This is in fact a discussion we had also in the SEND WG
> during last
> couple of days. At least some people that I talk to think that this is
> a general issue for the IPv6 and multi6 WGs to fix their protocols -- the
> issue appears even when you do not employ e.g. HIP or SEND or MOBIKE.

I agree this is a common problem of many of the multihoming solution, and it
should be addressed by each of the particualr solutions.
Since we are considering a multihoming solution based in HIP, we should try
to understand how a HIP solution can deal with this and how it can interact
with possible solutions for this problem.

...

>
> It does. I'm just trying to understand the best way to address this "big
> picture" problem. Actually, maybe you or someone else can help here, as I
> have not been involved in multi6 work.

I can try to help with this.

> Is there a problem statement or an
> explanation of functionality that would cover all these aspects?


RFC 3582 contains the goals for multihoming
Elliot's draft contain a good amount of interesting questions that we should
try to answer when designing a multi6 solution
(draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt)
You can also read D. Crocker's draft for an analysis of the big picture
draft-crocker-mast-analysis-01.txt

Hope this helps,

Regards, marcelo


>
> --Jari
>
>
>