Routing based proposals [Re: Draft of updated WG charter]

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

So far, nobody has come to multi6 with a proposal based on changes to
inter-domain routing. Absent any such proposal, we won't be working
on this approach. So the challenge to people who think there is an
IDR-based option is clear. Until then, I suggest we don't waste our
time discussing it.

Actually, we don't have any proposals based on any kind of change to
routing algorithms, as far as I can see. 

So let's discuss the proposals we do have, not those we don't have, OK?

   Brian
   co-chair

Noel Chiappa wrote:
> 
>     > From: Jay Ford <jay-ford@uiowa.edu>
> 
>     > boils down to the issue of hosts having multiple addresses. That
>     > decision precipitated the rest of this
> 
> Exactly! An excellent summary, couldn't have put it better myself.
> 
> Now, all you need to do is understand why multiple addresses are an
> inevitable consequence of the fact that we can't realistically call for the
> deployment of an entire new routing architecture as part of the Multi6
> solution.
> 
> Failing that, the only workable approach *within the current routing
> architecture* is overlapping naming abstractions, which are (looked at from
> the direction of the hosts, as opposed to from the routing) multiple
> addresses.
> 
>         Noel

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc@zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK