Re: Move forward

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

> 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

I think this is a very good approach and also what I tried to start 
doing with the road-map, except that I tried to group all solutions, 
and only noted the need to create a path forward. Do you think it would 
be useful to extend this document with this (or create a new one?). I 
don't mind changing the classes if we can consensus on a common 
grouping of approaches?

> 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.
Well said.

- kurtis -