Hi Robin, > I am only vaguely familiar with HIP and I looked only briefly > at the above slides, but I suggest that your proposal is not > sufficiently like HIP to consider it as part of a HIP discussion.
It's better to discuss map&encap and pure id/loc split approach, but not focus too much on one concrete proposal:) > Do you and your colleagues suggest RANGI as the solution, or > one of the potential solutions, which the RRG should > recommend to the IETF for full-scale development? Both map&encap and pure id/locator split approach have it's own pros and cons, and maybe they can be complementary to each other. So I hope both of them should be recommended and of course be optimized continually, which may be the rough consensus to be reached finally :) > If so, then I suggest it would be good to write up an > Analysis and Summary document and link to it from the RRG wiki. Thanks for your kindly suggestion, I will try to write an updated draft. > Also, I suggest you either nominate a strategy in Bill's page > which it matches: > > http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html > > or suggest changes to that page so your proposal fits in somewhere. > I think it is important that Bill's page covers every > proposal which anyone is seriously suggesting the RRG think > about. I think this should include any idea for a potential > solution, even if its proponents don't think the IETF should > start developing it soon. RANGI may be close to Stragety B. I'm not sure since I need some time to read Bill's page carefully. Xiaohu _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
