Re: tunneling [Was: Agenda for Vienna]

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:23:21AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> Didn't we kinda sorta agree that loc/id is our collective favorite 
> architecture and that the rest is either flawed, should be worked on 
> elsewhere or no interest in working on it as a group?

So if you were drawing out a multihoming roadmap, where would loc/id
be on that roadmap?

I ask because we should consider what we can do short-term and long-term.
Is the loc/id approach long-term?   Christian's multi-address "challenge"
is much more short-term, and I think is something we should push forward
on now.   

The question then is whether we need to create any swamp in the interim
for large enterprises for which Christian's approach is out of scope and
where loc/id (in the host or at the edge) is too far off.

Might we for example agree what the multi6 group can do now to assist
multihoming for new IPv6 deployments, and then "split off" long term
approaches (either within the group or out to IRTF if long-term really
is just that)?   Should multi6 focus on what can be done now, or what
can be done in 3+ years?

> Even though we get a bit sidetracked from time to time, I think we're 
> having a very useful discussion on the identifier semantics and mapping 
> mechanisms right now.

This is the sort of thing that should be on the Vienna agenda.

Tim