Re: new draft

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Reading this draft and draft-de-launois-multi6-naros-00.txt
together, I feel that they have a lot in common - except that NAROS
uses an ad hoc protocol instead of DNS, and is explicitly linked
to TE. But they both seem to me to be the nucleus of a depolyable
solution that doesn't break much at all. Can we ignore for a moment
the DNS-vs-ad hoc question and look at the pros and cons of this
family of solutions?

   Brian

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> After friday's discussion I wanted to see what could be accomplished
> without any kind of negotiation. What I came up with:
> 
> http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-2pi1a.txt
> 
> - no middleboxes
> - no state in routers
> - bare-bones multihoming for servers is possible without any state
>    in the server (the client must keep state though)
> - we have to break autoconfiguration
> - we need the DNS, no multihoming for severs with just IP addresses
> - optional source address rewriting
> 
> Note that this is a finished draft and it's not related to the other
> one I've been working on.
> 
> Adding some negotiation to the client part should make this much more
> reasonable but the server part seems reasonably solid.
> 
> Iljitsch