Re: IETF multihoming powder: just add IPv6 and stir

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

> 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.)
I am not sure I want to say that we recharter to the GSE++ model. I 
think we need to recharter mainly to update the milestones and also to 
perhaps change the charter somewhat. I am discussing this with Sean. 
Question is if this is worth doing before meeting in Vienna so that we 
can discuss this then, or if we should wait until after to reflect what 
has been discussed.

> 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.
Well, that is certainly true. But I think that if they want to present 
and make their case for their solution and against a GSE based 
approach, they should be allowed to do that in Vienna.

> Alternatively, you can surprise us. It had better be a pleasant 
> surprise, though.  :-)
I am not buying the beer..:-) I will discuss with Sean and see what we 
think is the best way forward.

> 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?
We will last call the "Requirements" doc shortly. As for the 
"IPv4-HOWTO", does it actually bring us something new that will help us 
move forward at this point? Or is this a nice to have that gets some 
issues of the table?

- kurtis -