RE: IETF multihoming powder: just add IPv6 and stir

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> > 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.
> 
> Ok, the charter isn't the most important thing, what we want to
> accomplish is.

Frankly, I don't believe that there is all that much value in the
so-called "GSE++" model. I see many shortfalls:

1) Rewriting addresses in the site exit routers deprives smart hosts
from the capacity to select their preferred return path;

2) There is a lot of ambiguity as to whether the proposed identifiers
relate to an interface, a host or a session, and these choices lead to
extremely different trade-offs;

3) We know from previous discussion that 64 bits is too short for a
randomly assigned global space;

4) It is kind of too late to rewrite the TCP implementations that are
already out there.

In fact, if we really want to go towards this independent identifier
path, I believe we should make it a session identifier, used by some
form of TCP++. Using it for routing does not appear all that practical.

-- Christian Huitema