Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Sean Doran wrote:

> > The IRTF doesn't agree:

> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-routing-reqs-groupa-00.txt

> Requirements Group A no more represents the formal position
> of the IRTF than multi6 represents the formal position
> of the IETF.

Aaarghh, you're not going to let me get away with _any_ hyperbole, are
you?

> I am very glad that you are reading the documents, and
> the editor is planning an update of this particular
> draft, and certainly would appreciate comments on
> that (or even on the one whose URL is above),
> should you choose to make them.

I don't know if I could forget about real-world concerns long enough to
make useful suggestions... For instance, in theory I agree with the
point that we shouldn't assume a network topology (so geography is out)
but how much are we willing to pay for not assuming this? In the real
there are interconnection points within 2000 km or so from
well-connected locations for good reasons: it helps robustness, keeps
speed of light delays in check and it's usually cheaper. So why not
optimize for this, at least in the absense of something that is better
in al regards?

PS. Sorry about my last email but I really found that comment to be
insulting, especially as it seems he didn't read the soon-to-be-draft
that explains how it works.

Iljitsch