Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03

[Eric Gauthier <eric@roxanne.org>]

> >> Does anybody have any other proposed changes to this document, or 
> >> should
> >> I roll a -04 with that change only, ready for wg last call?
> >
> > Can't we simply admit the fact that none of us have any operational
> > experience to be able to discuss multi6 requirement document
> > to be used later to evaluate proposals and move on without it?
> 
> Are you suggesting there are no network operators here?

Ok, I've been lurking for a while, but here are my $0.02.  I'm a 
network architect at a large university.  We're testing IPv6 on our
campus and intend to multihome with our pTLA.  We currently multihome 
with our IPv4 address space and had issues that we've solved regarding 
multihoming, especially in cases of Internet 1 versus Internet 2 traffic.  
So, just in case anyone is worried, there are people lurking here that 
do ops and not just people who are curious about the theoretical workings 
of IPv6.  

Secondly, IMHO, we've laid out what we think are requirements and there
doesn't appear to be anything in there that's unreasonable to hope for 
and expect.  Its now up to the brainiac's in round two to come up with a 
solution.  Just because I can't think of one doesn't mean that someone 
else won't.  But, if it turns out that someone does a proof that our 
requirements are mutually exclusive or no one is able to come up with a 
solution, we'll then have the experience of those who tried to work it 
out to determine what, specifically, is the largest subset of our draft 
that can be implemented or where we went wrong.  Until we get that 
concrete feedback, we're only guessing at what can and cannot be done.

I think we've written our exam question as best we can.  Its time to ship 
it to the students for them to solve and hope/pray that they can...

Eric :)