[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Requirements document [was Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56]

Quote from the one and only document in this WG:


3.2.1 Scalability
  [snip]
   A new IPv6 multihoming architecture MUST scale to
   accommodate orders of magnitude more multihomed
   sites without imposing unreasonable requirements
   on the routing system.
As chair, you simply can not recommend to go a way that blatantly
violates the only working document we have. This text is clear, and it's
a "MUST" not a "must" which has a very specific meaning as per RFC 2119.
To be pedantic, the requirements doc doesn't specify the starting point: orders of magnitude more multihomed sites than exist today on the v6 network is still easily achievable using draft-kurtis-call-me-when-we-get-1000-routes-in-the-dfz-00.

That is true, But it does bring up the issue of the status of the requirements document. From what I know it has been ready to be shipped to the IESG for last-call for quite some time. Some people have privately expressed to me that they see little point in moving this forward. I want to disagree, as I do think that this documents provides a good base-line and a tool for us as chairs to keep people focused on what we need to achieve. That said, I do not think that "requirements" are the right word as we will have different requirements at different times (and I know that people disagrees to this statement).

I have discussed this with Joe and if I have understood him correctly he is for updating the document to better reflect this as considerations for potential multihoming solutions. I suggest that we hold off discussions on this until we have a updated document and then see where to take it from there.


...and yes, I do realize that this creates problems with the charter and the milestones, but that is the least of my worries at the moment :-). We need to fix that anyway.

- kurtis -