RE: Draft of updated WG charter

["Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <saq66@umkc.edu>]

>I'll go further out on that limb & say that any multi-homing solution which
>requires substantially more intelligence in end systems than is currently
>required for multi-homed IPv4 is bound to fail, even if you somehow get it
>deployed.
 
disagree. For example, the way I use multi-homing from school is to have a
f5 system which load balance between the main connection (morenet, Internet2)
and my wireless connection. I also know that the whole LCS building at MIT 
has a web proxy system which allows to do a kind of Load sharing between 
MIT and a 100Mbps cogent connection. Given this is a *site* multi-homing
WG, it is a known fact that many enterprise networks use load balancing 
products for connecting to multiple providers. I can even argue that 
end-site can achieve a equivalent reliability by load sharing among multiple 
inexpensive broadband connections in addition to a single dedicated line. 
In short, we are moving from a phase where availability is increased not 
only by network level redundancy but also end site level redundancy. 
 
>  o  as evidenced by worm attacks..., the end systems are the worst managed
>      pieces in the whole puzzle run by users who don't (& I'd say shouldn't
>      be expected to) understand the workings of the network;  predicating
>      routing-type functionality on that platform is asking for trouble
 
come on... who is accountable for the multiple failures, accidental/stupid
misconfigurations, black lists, unwanted rate limitations(have you read the
recent IAB concern regarding port filtering.)?

>  o  there are at least 3 (4? 5?) orders of magnitude more end systems than
>     there are routers, so embedding significant pieces of networking
>     functionality in end systems greatly increases the likelihood of
>     trouble & even more greatly decreases the chance of consistent
>     operation over time
 
on the other hand, who has the incentive to deploy? It is only the 
end-sites. 
 
> Consider the current difficulty in deploying changes to other technologies
> due to system-level inertia (e.g., ASM->SSM for multicast).  Those are
> relatively upper-level things which for the most part don't affect the 
> basic ability to get packets delivered. 

talking of network level deployment, I don't see any change in backbone
past 5 years except plumbing. 

In short, if we go by your suggestion, we can close this WG and standardize
a simple BCP in idr WG (which will detail how IPv4 site-multihoming is 
applicable for IPv6.) I think this WG is not taking that path.