[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Minutes / Notes
Brian,
If we do not fix this, then we can just close up shop and go home,
because the business world is NOT going to accept a solution that
doesn't fulfill this. They would rather use IPv4 and PI addresses.
Tony
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
| Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 12:58 AM
| To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
| Subject: Re: Minutes / Notes
|
|
| Well, this is one of the many "shoulds" in our agreed list
| of goals. Whether we can achieve this "should" simultaneously
| with enough of the others is very much an open question
| in my mind, and it's one of the reasons why we may end up
| with more than one solution. In some scenarios, this may
| be a dominant goal; in other scenarios, it may be unimportant.
|
| Brian
|
| "Grovesteen, Harold" wrote:
| >
| > YES!
| >
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Tony Li [mailto:Tony.Li@procket.com]
| > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:38 PM
| > To: J. Noel Chiappa; multi6@ops.ietf.org
| > Subject: RE: Fwd: Minutes / Notes
| >
| > Noel,
| >
| > | This is only important if you want TCP connections to be
| > | able to survive
| > | having an incoming link fail (i.e. the address on the
| > | local end becomes
| > | unreachable to the rest of the network). This may not be
| > | an important goal
| > | (e.g. the typical web site wouldn't care).
| >
| > I believe that the WG has come to rough consensus that this is,
| > in fact, an important goal for us to solve. There are
| > numerous practical applications that drive this. More generally,
| > we (IETF, vendors) are being asked to make the Internet safe
| > for "mission critical" applications and having broken TCP
| > connections is simply unacceptable. Many applications today
| > are being outsourced: backups, storage, business applications,
| > interactions within an 'extra-net', etc.
| >
| > Tony
|
|