Re: tunneling [Was: Agenda for Vienna]

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

On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:43:50AM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> 
> I used to be a strong proponent of the road-map and gradual migration 
> approach. That is also why I wrote the road-map draft. However, I am no 
> longer sure that is a good approach. As was pointed out here, that 
> risks distracting us. Also, the goal of multi6 is to come up with the 
> solution. Not the protocol details, and probably not the migration 
> scenarios. If we start looking at this now there is a risk that we will 
> dug into all kind of side issues. This might be a role for multi6 in 
> the future, but I would say not now.

OK, so I shouldn't have used the R-word.  The point is to focus on what
we can meaningfully do now to address certain scenarios, and what
(architecture-wise) we would like to work on longer term.   Multi-addressing
can be tackled now for some scenarios, in particular the SOHO/SME v6 networks
which will account for a big chunk of all v6 networks.  We have many of the 
pieces we need.   

I don't see that it needs a spin-off WG, but if that gets us some focus 
that we otherwise will not get in multi6, it's worth considering, in which 
case we'd want a BoF slot for a multi-addressing charter bashing in Vienna.

We have two sessions.  Multi-addressing and loc/id seem to be the two main
consensus topics to work on?

Tim