RE: stable addressing

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

First test is to just get something working using 3178.  see mail below
on moonv6 with pointer to web page.  Idea is for vendors, ISPs, and
contractors to all jump in and build some operational prototypes based
on ideas in the web page below to see if we can at least get a test and
some operational experience with multiple ISPs and sites to add real
operational analysis for the work.  Energy levels are low now though
hope to pick them up soon we just came out of routing and security tests
so this is next and asked for by ISPs.  I did not attach the PDF as the
URL has the same data.  www.moonv6.org 

For the record my bias is SCTP with shim for TCP and some new SCTP
options for path change notification is what I am looking at technically
but not ready to present due to the day job slowing me down :--)  I
think a large part of the problem just for MH failover has to happen at
the end system and without doing DNS lookups in the kernel of an end
system.  Other technical IETF bias is I think MIPv6 is just fine thank
you, and MH should not be addressing mobility at all.  But if people are
eager to I believe first lets please just work on MH problem.

/jim

--------------------------------

There's been some discussion on this list about the multihoming issue.
A year or so ago I put an example on a web page that describes some of
the issues related to the Internet2 environment, where policy is an
issue.
Here is the url:

    http://people.internet2.edu/~rrsum/multi-home.html

I put this up mainly as an example to stimulate discussion in our
tutorials, so it may do that here also.  It does contain some of the
basic ideas.  Note that current Internet2 policy is to ignore
policy! -:)  That is, we we will IPv6 peer with any networks that are
interested in promoting the deployment of v6.

Regards, everyhone.

PS  I've also attached a pdf of the web page.

--Rick 

-------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 5:32 PM
> To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject: RE: stable addressing
> 
>     > From: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
> 
>     > what I stated was not theory but what exists today. 
> 
> I'm still interested in hearing whatever information you have 
> on how the market will "fix the multihoming problem", as you 
> put it, if things here don't happen quickly enough? I'm still 
> truly interested as to what technical approaches you see 
> happening in that case.
> 
> 	Noel
> 
>