RE: (multi6) control / load balancing of ingress traffic.

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

Masataka,

> Masataka Ohta wrote:
> For example, your selection of addresses at a source may
> randomly distribute return traffic but unlikely balance it.
> The destination may know, from routing information, some return
> path is temporaliry unavailable or some return path is five
> times more favourable than others.

Could you come up with a text for a new requirement that does not
appear to be a blatant advertisement for my draft?

I appreciate your feedback. However, there are at least two
reasons that would make me feel that this would not be
appropriate for a new requirement:

1. As the acting document editor, I have trouble putting in a
new requirement that is favoring my own draft.

2. I am not even sure that this would be a good requirement.
Although it is too early to tell, there is some potential for
solutions that address the largest numbers of multihomed sites,
such as personal setups that are dualhomed to DSL and Cable, or
possibly mobile, to provide a multihoming solution that does not
get any feedback from the routing system.

Thanks,
Michel.