load balancing [Re: Requirement document last call (let's focus!)]

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

> 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

Good compromise.

   Brian

Michel Py wrote:
> 
> 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.