Re: Draft of updated WG charter

[vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com>]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:58:18AM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> If the WG as a whole agrees with you (and this is an important point to nail
> down - my guess would be that they do not), then you've basically eliminated
> all solutions to the problem other than recycling Mobile-IPv6 mechanisms
> (since the charter rules out "let the routing do it", which means it has to
> be done via use of multiple addresses).
> 
> I'm curious as to why you want to rule out any changes to the end-hosts. I
> note that Mobile-IPv6 didn't restrict themselves in this way.

Significant amount of users that are multihomed have a setup that
accepts defaults from two providers, and anounces their blocks to
both upstreams. They receive no more information than the fact
that their connection is up. No routing tables, no prefixes, just
a quadzero.

(users defined as an enterprise, not the invididual computer user
obviously)

The end user system is often nat'd, and run through a stateful
firewall and all the information _they_ have is an ip address
of the gateway via dhcp.

Any end-host updating solution must work through this gobbledegook.

/vijay