Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>]

ack....plus it keeps me employed and can work till I die :----)

/jim

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Greg Maxwell wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
> 
> > I think so greg but if we can figure it out quickly we should. 
> > 
> > I am feeling like all want to ship something useful quick? I can go in
> > that mode easily?  Then we work on stuff progressively?  
> > 
> > Is that our model?
> 
> If we are to decide that transport multihoming is the right thing, we must
> do is soon there are too many architectural differences between network
> level and transport level multihoming. If we allow practically any network
> level multihoming we begin on the slipperly slope of deaggregation.
> 
> There is a lot of mential mass we would need to move, as it's hard to
> get people to cope with IPs not being host identifiers.
> 
> We need to figure out whats required of multihoming. *Draft*
> Figure out what transport can and can't do. *Draft?*
> Decide if transport is best; if so: 
> Figure out what architecture is needed to best capture the most benifits 
>        of transport multihoming. *Draft*
> Figure out what is the fastest way to make that architecture deployable.
> 	*draft*
> 
> The deployable solution could probably be slightly inferior to the world
> of IPv4 multihoming today if we concurrently provide 'the better way'
> (potentially extensive TCP options or SCTP, etc).
> 
> Most users of IPv6 will come *long* after the early adopters and *will
> probably never use non-transport-multihoming enabled hosts.
> 
> I think this is a big factor, as I intend to live a long time with the
> Internet that results. :)
>