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

Re: IETF multihoming powder: just add IPv6 and stir

On vrijdag, mei 2, 2003, at 09:22 Europe/Amsterdam, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

[...]

I think that this is a very good summary of the situation. And I think that it is good that we from time to time remind ourself of this..:-)
Maybe we should remind the IPng wg as well...
So we should use Vienna to decide WHAT we want to do, the HOW is then only a question of engineering, which we're supposed to know how to do here in the IETF.


I would also think that this is the main target of the Vienna meeting. 
That said, it doesn't have to be the only thing we do.



I think that after the what question has been answered, the how will 
soon be raised.




It looks like the type of solution that most people like / the least 
people hate is a GSE++/8+8/6+2+10/16+16 type of solution. Such a 
solution is probably the least ambitious that can still be expected 
to work well in the long term and probably the most ambitious we can 
expect to be deployed before we run out of IPv6^H^H^H^HIPv4 address 
space. If we can't reach rough consensus on this as a general 
approach it is extremely unlikely we can reach it on something else.




Note that agreeing on this approach doesn't mean all other proposals 
should be off the table immediately: if they provide additional 
benefits (for instance, they can be deployed before the "official" 
solution is ready) they should be viable so individual authors can 
keep working on them as they see fit.




I agree. Question is, with what you note above, how do we move that 
forward? Leave that to Vienna to discuss or should me and Sean think 
up away and present that?



It might be good to get the word out that multi6 wants to recharter and 
work on the identifier/locator thing aka GSE++ aka 6+10. Then we can 
see if the pro mob is larger than the anti mob at the meeting. It looks 
like this approach can't be too controversial (at least on this list) 
because nobody has taken the trouble of speaking out against it. (Just 
assuming they would if they were, for no particular reason.)



While making some other approaches official multi6 work items may be 
good for the proponent's egos, I don't think it will help those 
solutions much as there seems little interest in working on them as a 
group.



Alternatively, you can surprise us. It had better be a pleasant 
surprise, though.  :-)



Of course there are the little details of the two documents the wg has 
to deliver. I'm not going to mention the "R" word, but how about the 
"how is it done in v4" draft? I seem to remember some text about it, do 
we need to work on this and get it shipped by Vienna?