Subject: Thoughts for the second session in Vienna

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:34:05 +0200

I would like to see what we do on the mailinglist for the architecture 
before Vienna. I think that before the second session, it would be good 
to try and list

a) What we agree on in terms of architecture (I can go and dig through 
the archives and try and make a list)
b) Items of architecture that we think we need to discuss further 
(Eriks and Iljitsch list might be a good start)

If we manage to get some form of consensus on the above, we need to 
decide on what do use it for, but I think that is best to spare some 15 
minutes at the end of the second session to discuss.

With the above also comes the obvious question of what I mean as "terms 
of architecture". I think the detail level here will vary, but I think 
we need to continue on Iljitsch/Tonys/Eriks comments on how various 
pieces will interact and come together; what we can/can't change; How 
will packets transit from one point to another; What impact will what 
hops have the packets; etc.

- kurtis -

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:57:42 +0200

On dinsdag, mei 20, 2003, at 09:34 Europe/Amsterdam, Kurt Erik 
Lindqvist wrote:

> before Vienna. I think that before the second session, it would be 
> good to try and list

> (Eriks and Iljitsch list might be a good start)

I would be especially interested in a good "pro" argument about tunnel 
headers. As I've said before, I don't think they're useful, but many 
people keep mentioning them. It would be good if we can reach a 
conclusion here.

Also, I suspect the mapping discovery/negotiation and the actual 
failover will be the hard parts in practice. The identifier<->locator 
stuff itself isn't that complicated once we agree on the best way to do 
this.

> decide on what do use it for, but I think that is best to spare some 
> 15 minutes at the end of the second session to discuss.

Maybe it would be a good idea to get together in a smaller group and 
see if we can hammer out something workable. A little whiteboard can go 
a long way. We could do this between the first and second session and 
then see if there is consensus on the result in the second session.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:51:16 +0200

On tisdag, maj 20, 2003, at 16:57 Europe/Stockholm, Iljitsch van 
Beijnum wrote:

> see if we can hammer out something workable. A little whiteboard can 
> go a long way. We could do this between the first and second session 
> and then see if there is consensus on the result in the second > session.
>
>

This is why we are having two sessions and have asked the secretariat 
to have them in the beginning and the end of the week :-)

- kurtis -