Re: charter

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

Thomas;

> > I think additional example must be added:
> 
> > 	IPv6 differs from IPv4 that its global routing table is small.
> 
> I don't follow. While it is a goal that IPv6 routing tables be
> smaller,  this has to do with a lot of factors, including whether we
> get a handle on multihoming.

The current status of IPv6 is that there is no allocation swamp.

It is an important property to keep IPv6 routing table small.

> So I don't see how we can put that in the
> charter. Also, if the statement were true, what implication does it
> have for the charter or this group's work?

	This WG will consider the problem of how to multihome sites in
	IPv6. While the multihoming approaches used in IPv4 can also be used
	in IPv6, alternate approaches are needed.  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, hosts support multiple addresses per interface and
	the current global routing table is small.

> > > The WG will take on the following initial tasks:
> > > 
> > > Produce a document defining what site multihoming is, the requirements
> > > for a multihoming solution (from both the end site and ISP
> > > perspective).  This document will also include a taxonomy of different
> > > ways that multihoming might be achieved.
> 
> > That task is acceptable only if it does not affect the last task.
> 
> Huh? The last task will most certainly be influenced by what we decide
> are requirements.

When our initial decision on the requirements are uncertain, why it
should influence the last task?

Taxonomie battle on LB, TE and QoS is a good example of uncertainity.

> What I would like to see is a broad discussion of possible approaches,
> without ruling any of them out of scope. But discussing them doesn't
> give the WG a green light to fully develop the approaches and do the
> complete solution (at least not initially).  As discussion moves along

The discussion should moves along without restriction.

With no one have operational experience on large IPv6 network, who
really understand what the true requirements are?

All we know is that our approaches for multihoming will be different
from that of v4 that opeartional experience on v4 does not help so
much and will often be harmful.

						Masataka Ohta