Re: existing proposals

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Ben;

> > I'd like to propose that the charter of multi6 WG tolerate changes
> > on API or protocol, even though some people think the changes major.
> > 
> > 
> 
> ohta-san,
> 	i believe you are actually proposing 2 additions to the charter:

No.

> 	1) any multihoming solutions must maintain "end to end
> 		transparency" (something in desperate need of clear
> 		definition).

"end to end transparency"? What is it? No, I don't need your definition.

If you don't know what the end to end principle means, see RFC1958
"Architectural Principles of the Internet".

If you violate it, scalability is lost, as demonstrated by IPv4
multihoming.

The end to end principle is the basic principle that we don't have
to put it in the charter.

> 	2) protocol changes (presumably to IPv6 and transport protocols)
> 		are within scope.
> 
> 	i spoke briefly with thomas narten last night about #2, and
> while i lean towards believing some protocol changes could make our lives
> a lot easier, such an approach doesn't seem terribly feasible.  worth a
> shot, perhaps, but i don't hold out much hope.

With proper modification of the protocol, it is possible to make
existing implementaion interoperate with the new one, though
the existing ones are singly homed.

> development of additional protocols might be a more likely route.

No.

If you are talking about new transport/application layer protocols,
they are completely meaningless for existing applications.

If you are talking about new intelligent routing protocols, they
don't scale.

							Masataka Ohta