Re: Draft of updated WG charter

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

Tony Li wrote:
> 
> |  Routing update validation should be orthogonal to the multihoming
> |  solution.  Also, I am going out on a limb here and say that any
> |  m-homing solution that requires end-host updates is a non-starter
> |  from the get-go.
> 
> Oh well, and all of that work, too.
> 
> Frankly, I think it would be quite challenging to provide session
> migration
> without some end-host modifications....

End-host modifications are certainly not excluded and if you look at
the mechanisms already on the table you will see plenty of them.

But if I really understand Vijay, ism't he saying end systems on a
multihomed site need to be autonomic as far as mh is concerned? And
we do have a goal that unmodified hosts will continue to get
monohomed connectivity. Which will of course lead to help desk calls
when a multihoming event occurs for the site.

   Brian