Re: charter

["Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>]

Randy, Thomas:

We seem to differ on what the goal of the group is.  Is it to deploy IPv6 or
is it to fix multihoming?  I strongly urge the latter.

> This WG will consider the problem of how to multihome sites in
> IPv6. The multihoming approaches used in IPv4 can of course be used in
> IPv6, but IPv6 represents an opportunity for more scalable
> approaches. Also, IPv6 differs from IPv4 in ways that may allow for
> different approaches to multihoming that are not immediately
> applicable to IPv4. For example, IPv6 has larger addresses and hosts
> support multiple addresses per interface.

It is not yet readily apparent that the problem cannot be solved for both
IPv4 and IPv6, since today they both rely on the same mechanisms.  While it
is possible that this might not be the case in the future, why make it a
preordained conclusion of the group?

Therefore, I recommend a substitution, as follows:

The primary goal of this group is to recommend multihoming mechanisms that
scale far beyond where we are today.  To meet that goal, this group may
consider any advantages IPv6  has over IPv4 (e.g., larger address space),
but is not precluded from making recommendations for IPv4.

> Produce a document describing how multihoming is done today in IPv4,
> including an explanation of both the advantages and limitations of the
> approaches.

Please remove "in IPv4", since the mechanisms used in v4 and v6 are all but
identical.

>
> The WG will also consider specific proposals to multihoming in IPv6
> (both existing and new) and select a small number of them to work on
> as formal WG items. Development of specific solutions will require
> approval of the IESG (e.g., a recharter).

Again, strike "in IPv6", noting the allowance I proposed.


> Apr 01   Initial ID on multihoming in IPv4.

Again, strike "in IPv4".