Re: Pseudo "last call" for draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260-02.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Thomas Narten wrote:
> The document "IPv6 multihoming support at site exit routers"
> <draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260-02.txt> came out of the IPng WG, which
> has requested that it be published as an informational RFC. Given that
> the subject of the draft overlaps with the main focus of this group,
> we'd be interested in getting WG feedback on the contents of the
> document. Namely:
>
>  - is the document reasonable to publish as an informational RFC as
>    is, or are some specific changes appropriate?
>
>  - How feasible do the techniques described in the document appear to
>    be from the perspective of an operator?
>
>  - What are the main (if any) limitations to using the described
>    techniques from an operational perspective? Are these limitations,
>    if any, adequately described in the document?
>
> Explicit feedback (including "looks fine to me") from all those who
> read it would be helpful.

Personally, I find the approach workable in theory but rather awkward in
practise; I don't see one's upstream operator(s) jumping with joy if
they'd have to set up and operate a rather extensive "link backup
service", co-operating with their competitors.  In an academic,
no-money-exchanged world this probably works better.

These are in reality rather big operational and management issues, and
I believe should be stated more clearly.

So, I'm a little sceptic of the wide-spread value of this, but the idea is
interesting and worth an informational RFC.

I think _explicit_ Goals should be stated more clearly (as non-goals have
been); as far as I can see, this method protects against ISP link failure
and your edge router failure. "Why should I use this mechanism?" if I may.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords