Re: Draft of updated WG charter

[vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com>]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:37:24PM -0800, Tony Li wrote:
> 
> 
> Well, then I would pose to you the obvious question: what is
> it that you want multihoming to do?  If the end host behavior
> does not change, then all you are left with changing is the
> routing subsystem.  And the only thing that you can now do
> is to declare all multihomed prefixes global or do an absurd
> amount of tunneling to repair the topology.  For obvious reasons,
> I hope we agree that both of those alternatives are even less
> pleasant.

Tony, if it was an easy answer, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Whatever solution we come up with must somehow account for the realities
on the ground. I can see there being multiple methods in use, with
people hiding deep inside networks willing to accept the fact
that their sessions may not survive rehoming.

IFF we can get a solution working as transparently as say, tcp/ip
congestion control or dns,  then we have a shot I'd think.

/vijay