Re: requirements draft revision

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> > > 1. Multihoming should work even if the host on the other side of the
> > > connection uses a current (June 2001) IPv6 implementation.
> 
> > Is this required in addition to 2.2.2 and 2.2.3?
> 
> Don't you mean 3.2.3?

I think he does. I think it is required (perhaps as an update to 3.2.3)
to make it clear that an updated host can communicate with a non-updated
host (without survivability).
> 
> The current way of multihoming requires only the multihomed network and its
> transit providers to take any action.
> 
> If the new way of multihoming requires action (upgrading software) by the
> other end, obviously this will be less effective because the number of sites
> that upgrade their software will always be less than 100%.

And people still use Windows 3.1. We can't make this a killer argument
for host updates - that's exactly why I drafted 3.2.3.
> 
> So "old" multihoming would be superior to "new" multihoming so it is very
> likely that networks will continue to use the old way until this becomes less
> attractive for some reason, such as cost or default-free networks filtering
> their routes.

Exactly. That's why we're here - to find a strategic solution.

> 
> Basically, I'm saying the new way of multihoming should be at least as
> attractive to most users as the current way.

In the long term.

   Brian