Re: (multi6) requirements draft comments

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

Michel Py wrote:
...
> >> 3.1.4
> >>    A new IPv6 multihoming proposal MUST provide support for
> >>    site-multihoming for external policy reasons.
> >> This is vague. The example is focused on applications that use a well
> 
> >> known port, but the requirement does not say that route policy be
> >> based on ports. Doing so would clearly be broken, and since people do
> 
> >> this by selecting address ranges for those applications today, why is
> 
> >> an IPv6 solution expected to be any different?
> 
> This is vague indeed and I would not mind dropping 3.1.4 although it
> does not bother me.

I think it needs to stay in, but the phrase "or application, NNTP, for example, "
should be deleted. That would leave the "example" sentence as
   For example, customer C homed to ISP A may wish to shift traffic of a
   certain class to ISP B as matter of policy.  
which is necessary and sufficient IMHO.

We could refine it further by saying "shift outgoing traffic" to make it
clear that this is not policy based routing.

    Brian