[Monami6] More comments on draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00

I start a new thread since the other one "[Monami6] Fwd: I-D
ACTION:draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00.txt" has diverged from the draft
itself.

I have some questions that may appear a little bit stupid, but it may
help to clarify things:

- why do you consider the Shim6 layer over the Mip6 layer?
Couldn't the shim6 layer be cotemplated as an extension of the MIP6
layer, I mean both of them sitting together, not one above the other ?

- for Shim, there is a need for a protocol to exchange the set of
locators. Couldn't be MIP6 extensions used for such a task (I'm not
contemplating MIP6 as the protocol for doing it, I'm rather thinking
that given a node for a MIP6 protocol stack, it could be easier to
deploy Shim6 for MIP6-enabled nodes than for non-MIP6 enabled nodes.

- on 050714 you said "the SHIM work currently does not
considers the mobility scenario, so adding/removing addresses is still
somehow undefined": does Shim6 consider that all the set of locators is
known in advance ; can't new locators be added dynamically, or you just
mean the operation for doing is undefined ?

- on 050714 you wrote "SHIM may be useful to  provide some of the
features required to multihoming support in the MIP protocol": Could you
detail what features you are thinking about ?

Note, I also read  draft-ietf-shim6-l3shim-00.txt and:

- Section 2: wouldn't be useful to define what a shim is ?
- Section 4: [M6REFER]: reference not present in reference section. Must
be a typo 

Thierry

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6