RE: Transport level multihoming

[Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sean Doran wrote:

> Yes, we welcome proposals and drafts, but the present focus
> is on bringing to last call (i.e., please shout now) two
> main documents:
> 
> 	#1 - how multihoming is done today in the Internet
> 	#2 - requirements for multihoming in an IPv6 Internet
>              (which probably should say "AT LEAST #1 and some more things")

I pretty much agree with the two I-D's being presented at the IETF meeting
which I believe cover these two points.

> 
> After those two are agreed to, we can start examining individual
> proposals against #2.  Until then, while the specific proposals
> for protocols are an interesting way of converging on a reasonable
> architecture in which to develop various specific protocols,
> the freight train is a little before the foal...
> 
> So, while it's good to see interesting ideas from a number
> of authors being put forward as drafts, I'd like to suggest
> that the authors take a close look at the various present inputs 
> to numbers one and two above.
> 
> Since it's hard to forsee us recommending a standard which
> does not fully meet the requirements document, everyone
> should be asking: is what is developing now too strict, too loose?
> Are there pieces missing?  Are there pieces that should be missing?
> Are we so on the wrong track that you are motivated to write a 
> counter-proposal to numbers one or two above?  And so on.

My apologies.  I was picking up from where I was involved in IPng discussions a
couple of years back and was present at the interim meeting in Tokyo.  It had
gotten quite involved then and I presumed things were more advanced since then.

> 
> Yours in wondrous TechniProcess,
> 
> 	Sean.
> 

Can I gently say that IPv6 is getting beaten up quite a bit by the technical
community, and it all centres on the issue of multihoming and strong
aggregation.  It's stalling deployment by major infrastructure, and a lot of
people are not buying the line that "we'll fix that bit later".

I'm a strong supporter of IPv6 but its very difficult to defend IPv6 on this
particular issue when I can't point to specific ways of how IPv6 solves the
multhoming issue.

I will suitably back off - I'd forgotten how carefully one needs to tread in
the working group environment.

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210