Re: charter

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>]

> Hey, incidentally, did we restrict ourself to unicast IDR, or do we
> have to solve the (still not fully solved for v4) multicast IDR too?
> 
> Oh see what a rathole this is?  Hence, let's solve the multihoming
> problem for v6 with existing off-the-shelf technology, which is
> nearly identical to v4.  Do that first.   

I don't think we should dive into the multicast rathole head first.
But when thing about documenting both existing behavior as well
as what what people generally perceive as requirements for
multihoming, I think it would make sense to spend a few minutes
thinking whether multicast add something different.
(An example to illustrate what may or may not be present
for multicast multihoming is whether a site wants to have a single
copy of a multicast packet exit the site over one link or just have
the shortest paths to the receivers determine over which links the
packet exists the site.)

Note I don't know if multicast has additional requirements for the future
or in current deployment; I'm just saying that the WG shouldn't completely
ignore multicast.

  Erik