Re: tunneling [Was: Agenda for Vienna]

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

> , 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.
In many cases I would assume that we even don't have to do anything, or 
very little for multiaddressing to work. AMS-IX are already running 
their services in this fashion....


> 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.
I seriously think that having multiple WGs working on the same problem 
is a mistake.

> We have two sessions.  Multi-addressing and loc/id seem to be the two 
> main
> consensus topics to work on?
Yes. And I hope that we will have both discussed at the first session 
and then continue this at the second session (that is with focus on the 
architecture at the second session).

- kurtis -