Re: [Ila] [5gangip] PS draft: New Version Notification for draft-hspab-5gangip-atticps-00.txt

[Ca By <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:01 PM Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:25 PM Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Tom, this is why addresses need to be obfuscated. And you can’t do that
> with address translation/transformation. I’m a fan of ILA, but the IPv6
> header must be sent in the clear, and that is problematic for this issue.
> >
> > Dino
> >
> > And again, i really have no idea on what problem Tom and Dino are trying
> solve that they think a mobile operator would want to implement.
>
> I’m trying to solve for the general case. And if possible, then 5G could
> benefit regardless if anyone thinks it is needed or not.
>
> > I see Tom and Dino jockeying their solutions, but they are not solutions
> to problems that network operators have articulated.
>
> We both are trying to make both solutions better.
>
> > I believe at one point this listed agreed to produce requirements but
> then quickly decided it was better to have secret group (design team?)
> write a white paper about  id / loc.
>
> Note the [e-mail] mailing list is copied.
>
> > IMHO id / loc has zero traction in mobile , it is not present in any of
> the well publicized “5G” deployments that are currently going on.
>
> Then you can ignore us. But many of us want to think out loud freely and
> learn from each other.
>
> > Just $0.02 about the echo chamber we are in.
>
> You will have to use your email filters then.
>
> Dino


Ack.  Just contributing to the archive that 2 protocol wonks doting on
their own creations is not a working group or 5G.


>
>