RE: Mutli6 meeting in Vienna

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

> >>> - can we break applications?
> >>
> >> if break=modify, we might be forced to.
> >>
> >>> - can we break transport protocols?
> >>
> >> see previous.
> >>
> >>> - can we break autoconfiguration?
> >>
> >> yes.
> >>
> >>> - can we break IP?
> >>
> >> yes
> >>
> >>> - can we break IPsec?
> >>
> >> isn't that transport?

I think we have to qualify "break". I would personally say "augment"
rather than "break". The basic idea should be:

1) An unmodified implementation continues working, and receives at least
the same quality of service as if the local site was not multi-homed, or
the correspondent node was not multi-homed.

2) An augmented implementation gains benefits such as survival of
sessions, or migration of associations from a low quality path to a
higher quality path.

In practice, that means that we cannot "break" transports, IP or IPSEC.
However, we should be able to augment each of them. For example, if a
transport or IPSEC gain some notion of IP-address-independent session,
then it should be possible to use several "locator pairs" between two
entities. If two hosts have been augmented to support multi-homing
adaptations, then they should be able to cooperate. If
auto-configuration is augmented to provide support for multi-homing,
then augmented implementations should take advantage of it.

-- Christian Huitema