Re: Mailing list and draft charter for new multihoming BOF/WG

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Brian, Pekka,

[I miss the initial message by Pekka, so i comment on this one]

El 12/01/2005, a las 14:31, Brian E Carpenter escribió:

> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > We will request a shim6 BOF at the next IETF, and also start the
> > > process of forming at WG. But first, we need your comments on
> > > the draft charter.
> > Two typos:
> > -The shim6 WG is to produce specfifications for a complete IPv6 site
> > -multihoming solutions based on the architecture developed by the IETF
> > +The shim6 WG is to produce specifications for a complete IPv6 site
> > +multihoming solution based on the architecture developed by the IETF
> > Major comment:
> > The text, again, makes a huge presumption that just by solving the 
> > connection survivability problems, we have a complete IPv6 site 
> > multihoming solution.

I agree that the proposed draft charter may read a bit connection 
survivability centric (especially if we look a the proposed title of 
the wg :-) but i would argue that the actual tasks contained in the 
draft cover most aspects of the multihoming problem.
As i see it, there are essentially the following issues to address in a 
multihoming solution:
- ingress filtering
- fault tolerance that includes the establishment of new communications 
and the preservation of established ones
- traffic engineering

the charter contains most of these points (the only one that is not 
explicetly stated is the establishment of new communications which is 
why i suggested to include it).

I may agree that TE may need a bit rephrasing so to make it clearer

But in general i would say that this charter with the inclusion of the 
item about establishemnt of new communications would allow to develop 
solutions to all the aspects of the multihoming problem that i can 
identify.

Regards, marcelo



> >   That may be true for certain kinds of sites, but this seems like a 
> > far fetch in general.




> Well, Geoff owes us the general solution architecture document. When we
> test that against RFC3582, we can address your question...
>
>    Brian