Re: requirements draft revision

[Joe Abley <jabley-ietf@automagic.org>]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:26:12PM +0200, 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?

Yeah :)

> 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%.

Ah, I see -- I misunderstood what you meant by "other side of the
connection" -- you're talking about a remote endpoint of a transport-
layer session, right?

Perhaps we can generalise the paragraph I suggested (below) to include
this requirement, which seems very sensible to me.

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

Absolutely. That is the crux of the matter.

> > > 2. If the solution requires cooperation of the transit providers, it should
> > > only require the cooperation between the customer and each of the transit
> > > networks individually and not directly between the transit networks.
> 
> > How about this:
> 
> >   A multihoming strategy may require coopreration between an enterprise
> >   and its transit providers, but must not require cooperation directly
> >   between the transit providers.
> 
> Excellent.


Joe