Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Pekka Savola wrote:

> > > Some face-to-face discussion would also be good. How do we get multi6
> > > stuff on the agenda for Atlanta?

> Discuss what?  Solutions?  Forget about it...

Why not? Ultimately, what people need is solutions, not requirements.

> I think we need some concrete proposals on how to proceed with the
> requirements (it's a nice piece of work IMO but will probably be a bit
> useless: no solution is likely to satisfy all the criteria..) or what.
> There has been some discussion on that already, good.

Allow me to repeat myself: the current requirements are as good as they
are going to get. We can officially adopt them and live with their
inherit problems, or reject them and live without requirements. Either
is a valid option. But spending more time on refining them will not
provide additional benefits. These requirements are all reasonably
obvious, and it is just as obvious that we're not going to arrive at
solutions that fullfill all of these requirements completely.

At some point, they'll have to be applied to parts of the solution space
to decide whether a certain type of solution is acceptable or not. We
might as well start with that part now. So:

- Does geographical aggregation meet the requirements to such a level it
  would be worth our while to develop it further?
- Do address agile transport protocols meet the requirements to such a
  level it would be worth our while to develop them further?
- Does application-based multihoming meet the requirements to such a
  level it would be worth our while to develop it further?
- Does dynamic aliasing/tunnelling meet the requirements to such a level
  it would be worth our while to develop it further?