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

Re: Mutli6 meeting in Vienna

but we would need something to discuss around.
We also have Pekkas draft and we have the option to have someone go
through the options brought to the IETF so far (I was going
through the
ID archives but I could't find much more than my drafts, Iljitsch,
Tonys and Michels expired drafts. Then we also have HIP. Have
I missed
something?). Opinions?
You miss LIN6.

What is the draft name? I can't seem to find this.

I will prepare it, if there is a chance for presentation.
I got the draft mail to me in private. Reading to it quickly I noticed that parts of this solution is actually pending patent?



"The Architecture of End to End Multihoming"
<draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-*.txt> has been giving an overview
on so-called host based solutions in a way not specific to LIN6
before the WG was created.

Thus, I'd like to have a chance of presentation.




As I said yesterday, we will not have time at this meeting for all the
proposals to present.



Are you saying that you have tried to request 3 slots and denied by
IESG?

Or, are you just saying you are not so sure?




I am saying that I do not think it would be useful for us to request 
three slots. I don't think that will move us forward.




Instead we will try and have an overview of
solution classes.



That's why I'm asking for presentation of the overview on end to
end multihoming.




I think we are looking at one single presentation listing the solution 
classes. Pekka have volunteered to make such a presentation and we will 
most likely take him up on this offer.




Most work seems to be done with loc/id separation and

Christians host-based solutions. For the time being this is where I

think we should spend time at the meeting. We might want to spend more

time on other solutions at the next meeting.



Unfortunately we have some catching up to do and having all proposals

presented would take up very much time, without us moving on. Even 
then

what to do in order to forward would not be clear. Therefor discussing

the solution classes seems as a good compromise to me. Then looking at

the (from my POV) two mostly supported proposals and try to iron them

out a bit seems feasible. Me and Sean are discussing exactly how to do

this.


What do you want to discuss on solution classes? Isn't it already
obvious that the only solution class is host-based one with loc/id
separation?





I said I wanted an overview. If that means discussion or not remains to 
be seen. I would personally be happier if not.



I don't think that there is a clear view on host based solutions vs 
loc/id and I am definitely not sure that host-based with loc/id is 
obvious. But that is why we are having this discussion.



- kurtis -