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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

inline...

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 
> I may be misunderstanding something here, so let me ask the question
> before I expound.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
> To: "Multi6" <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 2:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D
> ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]
> 
> > Pekka Savola wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe one could reword this differently: the solution beas some
> > > thinking about if it doesn't rely on the 128bit address length of
> > > IPv6, and is not easily IPv4-capable.
> >
> > Yes. But this is the IPv6 multihoming WG, so while applicability to
> > IPv4 is an interesting question to ask, it cannot be a decision
> > criterion.
> 
> I'm not sure what the difference between "bears some thinking about"
> and "being a decision criterion" is in Brian's mind.
> 
> What I'm hoping Brian is saying is, "it's OK to notice whether a
> proposal works for IPv4, on this mailing list, but 'doesn't work for
> IPv4' can't be used to disqualify a proposal".

That's what I think I'm saying.

> 
> The reason I'm asking is, I've been very aware that multi6 was willing
> to host discussions at the very edge of the WG's charter, because
> multi6 was the "least wrong" place to have these discussions. Sean
> Doran (former WG chair) said basically, "why the heck not?" on August
> 9, in the "loc/id split" thread.

We do owe the WG a draft new charter where this should be clarified.
Working, working...

> 
> If Brian is saying that discussions about IPv4 suitability don't
> belong here, we need to find a place where they do belong.

The current charter already says 
 This WG will consider the problem of how to multihome sites in
 IPv6. The multihoming approaches currently used in IPv4 can of course
 be used in IPv6, but IPv6 represents an opportunity for more scalable
 approaches. IPv6 differs from IPv4 in ways that may allow for
 different approaches to multihoming that are not immediately
 applicable to IPv4. 

So yes, I think specifics about IPv4 solutions belong elsewhere. But if
an IPv6 solution would also work for IPv4, that would be a fine result.

> 
> I THOUGHT that Leslie asked Geoff to set up a mailing list after the
> IAB workshop in Vienna, but the minutes at
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03jul/127.htm don't show this action
> item. So, as Sean said, this is the least wrong place that exists
> today - how wrong is it?

Well, I think that list exists:
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saad
but it has been quiet.

   Brian