Re: existing proposals

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

Ben;

> > > 	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.
> > 
> 
> I have no question about the common meaning of end to end, but I
> do not understand how you are applying it (to RFC2260 based proposals,
> for example).

Don't rely on intelligence in the network.

Routing systems is intelligence in the network.

Can you spend some time to read my draft?

1. Introduction

   Multihoming is a way for hosts have robust connectivity to the
   Internet.  Traditionally with IPv4, multihoming has been offered
   through intelligence of routing system, that is, the end to end
   principle has been ignored.

   However, as discussed in section 2, with the explosive deployment of
   the Internet, as is always the case with intelligent networking, IPv4
   style multihoming was revealed its lack of scalability and
   robustness.

   Instead, multihoming can be supported based on the end to end

> Again, you are rejecting options out of hand without considering all
> implications or possible manifestations.

We now have a consensus.

I'm glad to hear that you are not insisting on developing new
protocols and open to proposals to change exsiting protocols.

As you can challenge relativistic theory, you can challenge the
end to end principle. Good luck.

							Masataka Ohta