Move forward

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

Let me offer an opinion on how we can move forward.

As I see it, there are basically four classess of IPv6 multihoming
solutions that have any promise:

1. "No changes" routing-based approaches, ranging from simple (ignore
   the scalability problem for now) to complex (geo aggregation).

2. Weak identifier/locator separation: the identifier is an address
   usable for routing that is replaced/hidden in transit in some way,
   typically by a router or middlebox (MHAP, but also
   tunneling/redirection mechanisms)

3. Strong identifier/locator separation: the identifer isn't an address
   usable for routing, so the end host must implement the solution
   (basic multiaddressing as we know it today, SCTP, HIP)

4. Mobility-based approaches (although this could be classified under 2.)

If we can make an upgrade path from type 1 solutions to type 2
solutions and from type 2 solutions to type 3 solutions, this will
greatly enhance the prospects of each. Also, it should be much, much
easier to draw up good requirements for each type of solution rather
than the generic "we want it all but it can't cost anything" type of
requirements we have now.

With those requirements in hand we can apply the "people who say
something can't be done shouldn't get in the way of the people doing it"
rule.