> > One of the disadvantages of working on a draft for 5-6 years is that > > the world might have changed around you. > > Assuming that the new world will take one step back, one to the side, > > and one step forward to use the new approach about to become a proposed > > standard when there already is a well-understood and deployed mechanism > > seems a bit odd to me. > > Well I have had an awful time trying to reply to this due to weirdness > with my wireless connection and sendmail, but let me paraphrase myself > and try sending again; maybe the 10th time is a charm... > > > I am not sure how silly your answer is supposed to be, but I am stuck on > thinking about how we should interact with a changed world in this case. > There is some conversation about replacing HAO with a nascent proposal > which is based upon using tunelling, which you said is about to become a > proposed standard.
Ah - sorry for not being more clear. The "new approach about to become a proposed standard" is, from the perspectives of the IETF at large, something called Mobile IPv6. The well-understood and deployed mechanism (for MIPV4, IPsec, etc) is IP-in-IP tunneling. Does that change things? Erik > This means that the solution might "make sense" in > this changed world -- but one could come up with another alternative > based on other standards, it is just a matter of the lingua franca used > to describe mechanisms to achieve the same goal. The questions, as I > understand them, are really (a) is HAO broken enough that we need to > remove and/or replace it? and if so, (b) is the tuneling proposal a > suitable replacement? > > There seems to be some disagreement about (a), but even assuming (a) for > the sake of argument.. people have so far refuted the relative > advantages of (b), other than the one in your answer: because it is > based on a proposed standard. It seems the security and anonymity > advantages are in question. At least insofar as the proposal might > relate to work in the Mobile IP group. > > There are many examples of protocols that exist in today's changed > world, and still do just fine. The discussions about Mobile IPv6 have > certainly included considerations about what has changed in the last 5 > years. But they are based on technical merits as well -- in my own > opinion, there doesn't seem to be anything that's come along that has a > clear superiority *and* serves the same purpose of the HAO, so it is > just as legitimate now as it was 5 years ago (hence you know where I > stand on (a)). > > > Well maybe you can tell me now how serious your answer was. And if I am > still trying to figure it out, perhaps the joke is on me... > > -TJ > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
