RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

|  > - Is the multi-homing solution IPv6 only or can it also be 
|  used with 
|  > IPv4?
|  > I know this is multi6, but it is probably interesting to 
|  know if the
|  > solution can be applied to IPv4
|  
|  To be honest, I think this is not important right now. Let's 
|  solve the 
|  task at hand first. If we after that figures out that it 
|  works for IPv4 
|  as well, all the better.


I'd submit that if it cannot be easily ported back to IPv4, that it
bears
closer examination.  v4 and v6 are architecturally very similar.  Any
solution that does not apply to both is either a kludge or is exploiting
an odd property of one of the two.  In either case, it would bear close
examination.  You know, the kind that you give things when the fire
alarm
in the building goes off... ?  ;-)


|  > - Does your solution applies to all type of sites?, for 
|  instance is 
|  > your
|  > solution suitable for very small sites? (does it requires an expert
|  > administrator o very powerful equipment) is your solution 
|  siutable for 
|  > very
|  > large sites?
|  
|  I think this might be a subjective judgment. Not sure it 
|  makes sense to 
|  take into account right now. But no strong feeling one way 
|  or the other.


I think that the question is valid, regardless.  However, I don't think
that this
is a _requirement_, which is what I think you were saying.


|  > - About incremental deployment, i think that there are 
|  different ideas 
|  > about
|  > what incremental deployment means.
|  
|  Maybe what we would need is to have each proposal include a 
|  description 
|  of how the proposal is implemented in a site/network?


Deployability is always a good thing for running code...  ;-)
Yes, I think any proposal needs to describe a plausible deployment
scenario.

Tony