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

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> > Some text indicating which requirements are absolutely essential and
> > which
> > are also important, but can be dropped if there aren't any multihoming
> > solutions that satisfy them would be good, I think.

> Do you have such text to incorporate?

3.1 Capabilities of IPv4 Multihoming

   The following capabilities of current IPv4 multihoming practices MUST
   be supported by an IPv6 multihoming architecture.  IPv4 multihoming
   is discussed in more detail in [1].

Would be replaced by:

3.1 Capabilities of IPv4 Multihoming

   The following capabilities of current IPv4 multihoming practices MUST
   be supported by an IPv6 multihoming architecture to a similar level as
   current IPv4 multihoming does. None of them is optional, but they can
   be omitted or only partially supported if an architecture supporting
   the capability to at least current IPv4 levels is unfeasible or
   doesn't meet the additional requirements listed in section 3.2.

   IPv4 multihoming is discussed in more detail in [1].


Then there is:

3.1.4 Policy

   A customer may choose to multihome for a variety of policy reasons
   beyond technical scope (e.g.  cost, acceptable use conditions, etc.)
   For example, customer C homed to ISP A may wish to shift traffic of a
   certain class or application, NNTP, for example, to ISP B as matter
   of policy.  A new IPv6 multihoming proposal MUST provide support for
   site-multihoming for external policy reasons.

I don't think this is the intention, but it _can_ be read as if IPv4
multihoming has the capability to direct traffic for certain applications
over one link and traffic for other applications over another link. Since
this is certainly not the case, at least the example should go, possibly
the whole thing. (Does it require anything useful anyway?)

Iljitsch van Beijnum