RE: Requirement document last call (let's focus!)

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Brian,

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> What is clear is that no RFC (especially a requirements RFC)
> will settle this. It will be settled in the real world as
> IPv6 routing and load balancing practices emerge.

I concur with this.

> I suggest that we either delete the language, or make it so
> vague as to avoid the argument. Deleting it seems simpler.

Arguing about is is not necessarily bad.
I still think this requirement (ingress multihoming in 3.12)
is good. When I designed my stuff, it was part of the design.
I am not sure that I would have come to the same result
without it. After all, the bulk of the traffic is likely to
remain from a singlehomed site at the source to a multihomed
site at the destination. Since there is nothing to be done
about load balancing at the source, it must be done at the
destination, and preferably both egress and ingress.

I am opposed to deleting the load balancing requirement, but
removing the ingress part that stirred up all this discussion
seems acceptable to me, if it does speed up the requirements
draft process (although I would vote to keep it as it is now).
Load balancing is one of the building blocks of multihoming.
Since that draft is not officially in last call yet, the
argument that has taken place about it was good for clarification
so far, IMHO.

This is topic #1 in the edit document, I will post 1.04 soon.
Please do send comments.

Michel.