Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Ben Black wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:01:44PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > 
> > If you combine both paragraphs, you would get:
> > 
> >          (1)  The solution must provide re-routing transparency for 
> >                  applications (possibly requiring changes to the applications
> >                  and/or the host stack to get this), AND
> >          (2)  RFC 2460 IPv6 implementations must still be able to establish
> >                  *new* connections regardless of which links are up 
> >                  or down.
> > 
> 
> Are there any _technical_ objections to this change? 

For point are we talking about RFC 2460 for the entire host or API level
up?  Requiring no changes to the entire host for re-establishment may
require contortions from transport level proposals, is this functionality
actually required.

If so, would the multi6 router performing NAT to during link failure be
acceptible? <Greg ducks under desk>

I have another requirement:

Any proposed system must not intrinsically exclude bi-directional traffic
engineering. 

(I.e. there should be the potential for knobs that, at least, the network
operator should be able to twist to shift about traffic of at least the
expressiveness that we have with IPv4 today (not much!)).

The exact method of engineering control doesn't need to be expressed, it
just can't fundamentally exclude it. I suspect a DHCP or host
autoconfiguration extension will be proposed along with any transport
level solution and left for another WG to standardize for this purpose.