On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 17:36 +0200, Benjamin Thery wrote: > Hello, Hello Benjamin,
Before anyone gets upset about this mail, I'll say I'm not trying to offend anyone or question anyones abilities. Rather, I'd like to see this as a start for a discussion with broader audience. > Following your announcement about UMIP, I have a bunch of questions to > ask. > > The first one is very simple: Will USAGI be the maintainer MIPv6 for > Linux in the future? This is not very clear to me in your announcement. No. > (I understood from previous messages that Antti and Ville from HUT are > no longer actively working on MIPL and NEPL projects, as they now have > other priorities.) Nobody is paying us to do MIPL or NEPL stuff at the moment. That does not mean we are giving up any responsibilities, it just means we can't do that much on our working hours. Nothing special from most other OSS projects. > The tarballs you advertised seem older than the latest release of MIPL > (2.0.1 released in February). I'd like to know exactly on which > version of MIPL is UMIP based on? It seems to be a snapshot from Dec 14th 2005. I'd suppose the kernel is from the same day. > You also mentioned a very interesting point which is the merge into > the mainline kernel of MIPv6. It would be great to see this happen > soon. Can you provide us with some more information? Has the work for > integration already begun? Can we help is some ways? There has been talk about first integrating all the non-MIPv6 specific stuff like the policy routing. Since most changes to IPv6 code go through Hideaki Yoshifuji (of USAGI), we (at HUT) have always considered the right avenue to the mainline go through USAGI. We have never gotten a clear indication at what point integration to mainline or even to USAGI kernels might be happening. We would like to see MIPv6 stuff integrated as soon as possible. That would help us enourmously, as well as make things easier for people wanting to test or distributions wanting to include Mobile IPv6 support. > Thank you a lot for all your answers. I know you didn't mean me to answer, but I did anyway. There has been plenty of confusion already about USAGI/MIPL relation, so I would like to clear things up a bit. HUT and USAGI started collaboration on Mobile IPv6 in about 2003, so there wouldn't be two separate implementations. At that time HUT had already been working on MIPv6 from 1999 (MIPv6 draft 8, kernel version 2.3.59 or something). At some point USAGI started to show up at interops with a patched MIPL they called UMIP. We had to explain to other people time and time again, that MIPL and UMIP are not different implementations, but UMIP just has patches that were either not submitted to us, or were rejected by us. There were more than plenty of misunderstandings between HUT and USAGI groups which hindered the co-operation. One of the main reasons for rejecting a patch from USAGI was usually that they read TAHI tests as the final and undisputed truth. When offered with a bulky patch changing something here something there not really sure what or why, just so you could pass one TAHI test, even if the test didn't make sense in the first place, we of course turned it down, and told then to talk to TAHI guys instead. You have a nice example of this on your TAHI test analysis page: "The question is: Is it conform if the MN restarts a Home Registration with the HA that failed to acknowledge its previous Home Registration session?" Everyone agree that if DHAAD Reply only has one HA, that should be tried. If it doesn't reply you can try again, but at some point you have to give up, and try DHAAD again. TAHI test again replies with just one HA on the reply, itself. Obviously, if it responds to DHAAD Request, we assume it is reachable. Other implementors usually just shrugged their shoulders and said "so what.. everyone knows that test doesn't work so just ignore it". So, as far as I understand it, and what I've gathered by talking to other people, there is nothing wrong with the above behaviour wrt. RFC3775. Another thing is that sometimes when TAHI test machine isn't powerful enough, it fails a test just because it can't keep up with the other end. TAHI guys told this themselves. So rather than doing elaborate modifications to our implementation while we interoperate successfully with most, if not all, other implementation, we would very much like to talk with TAHI guys or better yet have USAGI people talk to TAHI guys since both TAHI and USAGI are part of the bigger WIDE project, and speak the same language. The best possible scenario for us would be to get remaining TAHI tests fixed (either by us or TAHI, depending) and the kernel support integrated ASAP to mainline. This would allow us to redirect all resources we have to further development of the user space daemon. This would also make a clear cut division of responsibilities. Anything that needs to be fixed in the kernel goes through USAGI, and anything else through us. Regards, Antti _______________________________________________ mipl mailing list [email protected] http://www.mobile-ipv6.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mipl
