Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

El 12 ag 2017, a les 13:45, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> va escriure:
> I agree.  It seems like it ought to be a routing protocol at the edge, that
> the destinations involved should be advertised with longer prefixes, and with
> some kind of metric that implies the cost.  The edge routers that hear this
> should be skeptical, but should provide the information to the user.
> (The CAPPORT protocol and API would be useful here!)

The problem with this is that it is quite brittle—it depends on everything working right.   The routing has to be set up right.   The operator has to set the routing up right.   The other operator has to not deliberately or accidentally set the routing up wrong.   The home network has to successfully get the right routing information and use it correctly.

> 
>    mcr> It seems to me that we are re-inventing SHIM6, trying in vain to
>    mcr> pretend wenever heard of that. And I still don't understand why it
>    mcr> was killed.
> 
>> Shim6 attempts to solve a much larger problem, and in a rather heavyweight
>> and top-down way.
> 
> I view MPvD as being as being heavier weight, involving changes to more parts
> of the host stack, with poorer results.

It might be worth actually writing down why you think that's so.   It's far from obvious to me that it is, but I am not as familiar as you are with Shim6.   Unfortunately as far as I know nobody ever presented anything about Shim6 in MIF; if in fact what you are saying is true, a lot of time and effort could have been saved if that had happened.