From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Tue May 28 13:48:25 2002 Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26435 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17Cl2G-000C1W-00 for multi6-data@psg.com; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:45:28 -0700 Received: from uds250-58.dial.hccnet.nl ([62.251.58.250] helo=guest180.ripe.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17Cl2E-000C1Q-00 for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:45:26 -0700 Received: from randy by guest180.ripe.net with local (Exim 4.04) id 17Cl1i-0001bB-00; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:44:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20020528172913.GA16020@buffoon.automagic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:29:13 -0400 From: Joe Abley To: multi6@ops.ietf.org Cc: ben@layer8.net, vijaygill9@aol.com Subject: revised requirements draft Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore delete mis-posts. so fix subscription addresses! ] Hi all, Thomas and Sean asked me to make some edits to the -02 requirements draft, drawing on what consensus I could see from the list archives (including Michael Py's rolling summary of issues, which was very handy). What follows below is a candidate -03 draft. Here's a summary of the pertinent diffs; comments most welcome. Note that this draft has not been sent to the rfc editor yet, so if people have comments I'll harvest the diffs paragraph by paragraph and make changes appropriately. |3.1.7 Impact on DNS | | Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with the observed | dynamics of the current DNS system, or the solutions MUST have | demonstrate that the modified name resolution system required to | support them are readily deployable. New section, based on suggestions from Christian Huitema and RJ Atkinson. Brian Carpenter included a requirement that a proposed solution should include an analysis of its impact on the DNS, which I omitted since it seems inherent in 3.1.7 that analysis is required. |3.1.8 Packet Filtering | | Multihoming solutions MUST NOT preclude filtering packets with forged | or otherwise inappropriate source IP addresses at the administrative | boundary of the multi-homed site. | 3.2.6 Cooperation between Transit Providers A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site and its | transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation (relating | specifically to the multi-homed site) directly between the transit | providers. The phrase in brackets was added. This makes the grammar horrible; sorry about that. |3.2.7 Multiple Solutions | There MAY be more than one approach to multi-homing, provided all | approaches are orthogonal (e.g. each approach addresses a distinct | segment or category within the site multi-homing problem. Multiple | solutions will incur a greater management overhead within the IESG, | however, and the adopted solutions SHOULD attempt to cover as many | multi-homing scenarios as possible. This covers, I think, the issue raised by Christian, and is based on his text with suggestions from RJ Atkinson and Rob Rockell. 4. Security Considerations | A multihomed site MUST NOT be more vulnerable to security breaches | than a traditionally IPv4-multihomed site. This requirement has become weaker, but more reasonable (suggested by Eliot Lear, Rob Rockell). There was an additional requirement suggested by Christian about single points of failure in topologies involving home agents, but I see he offered to drop the requirement since it didn't stimulate a lot of conversation. The remaining contentious point that I can find is with section 3.1.2: 3.1.2 Load Sharing By multihoming, a site MUST be able to distribute both inbound and outbound traffic between multiple transit providers. This requirement is for concurrent use of the multiple transit providers, not just the usage of one provider over one interval of time and another provider over a different interval. I didn't see clear consensus on this point. My personal opinion is that we should keep it, since it's an operational necessity in the current network and I don't see how deployment of a new new multihoming strategy could proceed without it. Complete draft follows. Joe Site Multihoming in IPv6 (multi6) B. Black Internet-Draft Layer8 Networks Expires: November 26, 2002 V. Gill AOL Time Warner J. Abley MFN May 28, 2002 Requirements for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2002. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract Site-multihoming, i.e. connecting to more than one IP service provider, is an essential component of service for many sites which are part of the Internet. Existing IPv4 site-multihoming practices, described in a companion draft [1], provides a set of capabilities that must be accommodated by the adopted site-multihoming architecture in IPv6, and a set of limitations that must be overcome, relating in particular to scalability. This document outlines a set of requirements for a new IPv6 site- multihoming architecture. 1. Introduction Current IPv4 site-multihoming practices have been added on to the CIDR architecture [2], which assumes that routing table entries can be aggregated based upon a hierarchy of customers and service providers [1]. However, it appears that this hierarchy is being supplanted by a dense mesh of interconnections [9]. Additionally, there has been an enormous growth in the number of multihomed sites. For purposes of redundancy and load-sharing, the multihomed address blocks, which are almost always a longer prefix than the provider aggregate, are announced along with the larger, covering aggregate originated by the provider. This contributes to the rapidly-increasing size of the global routing table. This explosion places significant stress on the inter-provider routing system. Continued growth of both the Internet and the practice of site- multihoming will seriously exacerbate this stress. The site- multihoming architecture for IPv6 should allow the routing system to scale more pleasantly. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4]. A "site" is an entity autonomously operating a network using IP and, in particular, determining the addressing plan and routing policy for that network. This definition is intended to be equivalent to "enterprise" as defined in [3]. A "transit provider" operates a site which directly provides connectivity to the Internet to one or more external sites. The connectivity provided extends beyond the transit provider's own site. A transit provider's site is directly connected to the sites for which it provides transit. A "multihomed" site is one with more than one transit provider. "Site-multihoming" is the practice of arranging a site to be multihomed. The term "re-homing" denotes a transition of a site between two states of connectedness, due to a change in the connectivity between the site and its transit providers' sites. 3. Multihoming Requirements 3.1 Capabilities of IPv4 Multihoming The following capabilities of current IPv4 multihoming practices MUST be supported by an IPv6 multihoming architecture. IPv4 multihoming is discussed in more detail in [1]. 3.1.1 Redundancy By multihoming, a site MUST be able to insulate itself from certain failure modes within one or more transit providers, as well as failures in the network providing interconnection among one or more transit providers. Infrastructural commonalities below the IP layer may result in connectivity which is apparently diverse sharing single points of failure. For example, two separate DS3 circuits ordered from different suppliers and connecting a site to independent transit providers may share a single conduit from the street into a building; in this case backhoe-fade of both circuits may be experienced due to a single incident in the street. The two circuits are said to "share fate". The multihoming architecture MUST accommodate (in the general case, issues of shared fate notwithstanding) continuity of connectivity during the following failures: o Physical failure, such as a fiber cut, or router failure, o Logical link failure, such as a misbehaving router interface, o Routing protocol failure, such as a BGP peer reset, o Transit provider failure, such as a backbone-wide IGP failure, and o Exchange failure, such as a BGP reset on an inter-provider peering. 3.1.2 Load Sharing By multihoming, a site MUST be able to distribute both inbound and outbound traffic between multiple transit providers. This requirement is for concurrent use of the multiple transit providers, not just the usage of one provider over one interval of time and another provider over a different interval. 3.1.3 Performance By multihoming, a site MUST be able to protect itself from performance difficulties directly between the site's transit providers. For example, suppose site E obtains transit from transit providers T1 and T2, and there is long-term congestion between T1 and T2. The multihoming architecture MUST allow E to ensure that in normal operation none of its traffic is carried over the congested interconnection T1-T2. The process by which this is achieved MAY be a manual one. A multihomed site MUST be able to distribute inbound traffic from particular multiple transit providers according to the particular address range within their site which is sourcing or sinking the traffic. 3.1.4 Policy A customer may choose to multihome for a variety of policy reasons beyond technical scope (e.g. cost, acceptable use conditions, etc.) For example, customer C homed to ISP A may wish to shift traffic of a certain class or application, NNTP, for example, to ISP B as matter of policy. A new IPv6 multihoming proposal MUST provide support for site-multihoming for external policy reasons. 3.1.5 Simplicity As any proposed multihoming solution must be deployed in real networks with real customers, simplicity is paramount. The current multihoming solution is quite straightforward to deploy and maintain. A new IPv6 multihoming proposal MUST NOT be substantially more complex to deploy and operate than current IPv4 multihoming practices. 3.1.6 Transport-Layer Survivability Multihoming solutions MUST provide re-homing transparency for transport-layer sessions; i.e. exchange of data between devices on the multihomed site and devices elsewhere on the Internet may proceed with no greater interruption than that associated with the transient packet loss during the re-homing event. New transport-layer sessions MUST be able to be created following a re-homing event. Transport-layer sessions include those involving transport-layer protocols such as TCP, UDP and SCTP over IP. Applications which communicate over raw IP and other network-layer protocols MAY also enjoy re-homing transparency. 3.1.7 Impact on DNS Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with the observed dynamics of the current DNS system, or the solutions MUST have demonstrate that the modified name resolution system required to support them are readily deployable. 3.1.8 Packet Filtering Multihoming solutions MUST NOT preclude filtering packets with forged or otherwise inappropriate source IP addresses at the administrative boundary of the multihomed site. 3.2 Additional Requirements 3.2.1 Scalability Current IPV4 multihoming practices contribute to the significant growth currently observed in the state held in the global inter- provider routing system; this is a concern both because of the hardware requirements it imposes and also because of the impact on the stability of the routing system. This issue is discussed in great detail in [9]. A new IPv6 multihoming architecture MUST scale to accommodate orders of magnitude more multihomed sites without imposing unreasonable requirements on the routing system. 3.2.2 Impact on Routers The solution MAY require changes to IPv6 router implementations, but these changes must be either minor, or in the form of logically separate functions added to existing functions. Such changes MUST NOT prevent normal single-homed operation, and routers implementing these changes must be able to interoperate fully with hosts and routers not implementing them. 3.2.3 Impact on Hosts The solution MUST NOT destroy IPv6 connectivity for a legacy host implementing RFC 2373 [5], RFC 2460 [7], RFC 2553 [8] and other basic IPv6 specifications current in November 2001. That is to say, if a host can work in a single-homed site, it must still be able to work in a multihomed site, even if it cannot benefit from site- multihoming. It would be compatible with this requirement for such a host to lose connectivity if a site lost connectivity to one transit provider, despite the fact that other transit provider connections were still operational. If the solution requires changes to the host stack, these changes MUST be either minor, or in the form of logically separate functions added to existing functions. If the solution requires changes to the socket API and/or the transport layer, it MUST be possible to retain the original socket API and transport protocols in parallel, even if they cannot benefit from multihoming. The multihoming solution MAY allow host or application changes if that would enhance session survivability. 3.2.4 Interaction between Hosts and the Routing System The solution MAY involve interaction between a site's hosts and its routing system; such an interaction MUST be simple, scaleable and securable. 3.2.5 Operations and Management It MUST be posssible for staff responsible for the operation of a site to monitor and configure the site's multihoming system. 3.2.6 Cooperation between Transit Providers A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site and its transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation (relating specifically to the multihomed site) directly between the transit providers. 3.2.7 Multiple Solutions There MAY be more than one approach to multihoming, provided all approaches are orthogonal (e.g. each approach addresses a distinct segment or category within the site multihoming problem. Multiple solutions will incur a greater management overhead within the IESG, however, and the adopted solutions SHOULD attempt to cover as many multihoming scenarios as possible. 4. Security Considerations A multihomed site MUST NOT be more vulnerable to security breaches than a traditionally IPv4-multihomed site. References [1] Abley, J., Black, B. and V. Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Motivation, Practices and Limitations (work-in-progress)", I-D draft-ietf- multi6-v4-multihoming-00, June 2001. [2] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J. and K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter- Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", RFC 1519, September 1993. [3] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", RFC 1918, February 1996. [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [5] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. [6] Hinden, R., O'Dell, M. and S. Deering, "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374, July 1998. [7] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [8] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999. [9] Huston, G., "Analyzing the Internet's BGP Routing Table", January 2001. Authors' Addresses Benjamin Black Layer8 Networks EMail: ben@layer8.net Vijay Gill AOL Time Warner EMail: vijaygill9@aol.com Joe Abley MFN 10805 Old River Road Komoka, ON N0L 1R0 Canada Phone: +1 519 641 4368 EMail: jabley@mfnx.net Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Tue May 28 13:52:33 2002 Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26519 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17Cl9B-000CFr-00 for multi6-data@psg.com; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:52:37 -0700 Received: from uds250-58.dial.hccnet.nl ([62.251.58.250] helo=guest180.ripe.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17Cl99-000CFf-00 for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:52:35 -0700 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=roam.psg.com.psg.com ident=randy) by roam.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.04) id 17Cl98-0001bw-00 for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:52:34 -0700 Message-ID: <20020528172913.GA16020@buffoon.automagic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:29:13 -0400 From: Joe Abley To: multi6@ops.ietf.org Cc: ben@layer8.net, vijaygill9@aol.com Subject: revised requirements draft Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore delete mis-posts. so fix subscription addresses! ] Hi all, Thomas and Sean asked me to make some edits to the -02 requirements draft, drawing on what consensus I could see from the list archives (including Michael Py's rolling summary of issues, which was very handy). What follows below is a candidate -03 draft. Here's a summary of the pertinent diffs; comments most welcome. Note that this draft has not been sent to the rfc editor yet, so if people have comments I'll harvest the diffs paragraph by paragraph and make changes appropriately. |3.1.7 Impact on DNS | | Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with the observed | dynamics of the current DNS system, or the solutions MUST have | demonstrate that the modified name resolution system required to | support them are readily deployable. New section, based on suggestions from Christian Huitema and RJ Atkinson. Brian Carpenter included a requirement that a proposed solution should include an analysis of its impact on the DNS, which I omitted since it seems inherent in 3.1.7 that analysis is required. |3.1.8 Packet Filtering | | Multihoming solutions MUST NOT preclude filtering packets with forged | or otherwise inappropriate source IP addresses at the administrative | boundary of the multi-homed site. | 3.2.6 Cooperation between Transit Providers A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site and its | transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation (relating | specifically to the multi-homed site) directly between the transit | providers. The phrase in brackets was added. This makes the grammar horrible; sorry about that. |3.2.7 Multiple Solutions | There MAY be more than one approach to multi-homing, provided all | approaches are orthogonal (e.g. each approach addresses a distinct | segment or category within the site multi-homing problem. Multiple | solutions will incur a greater management overhead within the IESG, | however, and the adopted solutions SHOULD attempt to cover as many | multi-homing scenarios as possible. This covers, I think, the issue raised by Christian, and is based on his text with suggestions from RJ Atkinson and Rob Rockell. 4. Security Considerations | A multihomed site MUST NOT be more vulnerable to security breaches | than a traditionally IPv4-multihomed site. This requirement has become weaker, but more reasonable (suggested by Eliot Lear, Rob Rockell). There was an additional requirement suggested by Christian about single points of failure in topologies involving home agents, but I see he offered to drop the requirement since it didn't stimulate a lot of conversation. The remaining contentious point that I can find is with section 3.1.2: 3.1.2 Load Sharing By multihoming, a site MUST be able to distribute both inbound and outbound traffic between multiple transit providers. This requirement is for concurrent use of the multiple transit providers, not just the usage of one provider over one interval of time and another provider over a different interval. I didn't see clear consensus on this point. My personal opinion is that we should keep it, since it's an operational necessity in the current network and I don't see how deployment of a new new multihoming strategy could proceed without it. Complete draft follows. Joe Site Multihoming in IPv6 (multi6) B. Black Internet-Draft Layer8 Networks Expires: November 26, 2002 V. Gill AOL Time Warner J. Abley MFN May 28, 2002 Requirements for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2002. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract Site-multihoming, i.e. connecting to more than one IP service provider, is an essential component of service for many sites which are part of the Internet. Existing IPv4 site-multihoming practices, described in a companion draft [1], provides a set of capabilities that must be accommodated by the adopted site-multihoming architecture in IPv6, and a set of limitations that must be overcome, relating in particular to scalability. This document outlines a set of requirements for a new IPv6 site- multihoming architecture. 1. Introduction Current IPv4 site-multihoming practices have been added on to the CIDR architecture [2], which assumes that routing table entries can be aggregated based upon a hierarchy of customers and service providers [1]. However, it appears that this hierarchy is being supplanted by a dense mesh of interconnections [9]. Additionally, there has been an enormous growth in the number of multihomed sites. For purposes of redundancy and load-sharing, the multihomed address blocks, which are almost always a longer prefix than the provider aggregate, are announced along with the larger, covering aggregate originated by the provider. This contributes to the rapidly-increasing size of the global routing table. This explosion places significant stress on the inter-provider routing system. Continued growth of both the Internet and the practice of site- multihoming will seriously exacerbate this stress. The site- multihoming architecture for IPv6 should allow the routing system to scale more pleasantly. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4]. A "site" is an entity autonomously operating a network using IP and, in particular, determining the addressing plan and routing policy for that network. This definition is intended to be equivalent to "enterprise" as defined in [3]. A "transit provider" operates a site which directly provides connectivity to the Internet to one or more external sites. The connectivity provided extends beyond the transit provider's own site. A transit provider's site is directly connected to the sites for which it provides transit. A "multihomed" site is one with more than one transit provider. "Site-multihoming" is the practice of arranging a site to be multihomed. The term "re-homing" denotes a transition of a site between two states of connectedness, due to a change in the connectivity between the site and its transit providers' sites. 3. Multihoming Requirements 3.1 Capabilities of IPv4 Multihoming The following capabilities of current IPv4 multihoming practices MUST be supported by an IPv6 multihoming architecture. IPv4 multihoming is discussed in more detail in [1]. 3.1.1 Redundancy By multihoming, a site MUST be able to insulate itself from certain failure modes within one or more transit providers, as well as failures in the network providing interconnection among one or more transit providers. Infrastructural commonalities below the IP layer may result in connectivity which is apparently diverse sharing single points of failure. For example, two separate DS3 circuits ordered from different suppliers and connecting a site to independent transit providers may share a single conduit from the street into a building; in this case backhoe-fade of both circuits may be experienced due to a single incident in the street. The two circuits are said to "share fate". The multihoming architecture MUST accommodate (in the general case, issues of shared fate notwithstanding) continuity of connectivity during the following failures: o Physical failure, such as a fiber cut, or router failure, o Logical link failure, such as a misbehaving router interface, o Routing protocol failure, such as a BGP peer reset, o Transit provider failure, such as a backbone-wide IGP failure, and o Exchange failure, such as a BGP reset on an inter-provider peering. 3.1.2 Load Sharing By multihoming, a site MUST be able to distribute both inbound and outbound traffic between multiple transit providers. This requirement is for concurrent use of the multiple transit providers, not just the usage of one provider over one interval of time and another provider over a different interval. 3.1.3 Performance By multihoming, a site MUST be able to protect itself from performance difficulties directly between the site's transit providers. For example, suppose site E obtains transit from transit providers T1 and T2, and there is long-term congestion between T1 and T2. The multihoming architecture MUST allow E to ensure that in normal operation none of its traffic is carried over the congested interconnection T1-T2. The process by which this is achieved MAY be a manual one. A multihomed site MUST be able to distribute inbound traffic from particular multiple transit providers according to the particular address range within their site which is sourcing or sinking the traffic. 3.1.4 Policy A customer may choose to multihome for a variety of policy reasons beyond technical scope (e.g. cost, acceptable use conditions, etc.) For example, customer C homed to ISP A may wish to shift traffic of a certain class or application, NNTP, for example, to ISP B as matter of policy. A new IPv6 multihoming proposal MUST provide support for site-multihoming for external policy reasons. 3.1.5 Simplicity As any proposed multihoming solution must be deployed in real networks with real customers, simplicity is paramount. The current multihoming solution is quite straightforward to deploy and maintain. A new IPv6 multihoming proposal MUST NOT be substantially more complex to deploy and operate than current IPv4 multihoming practices. 3.1.6 Transport-Layer Survivability Multihoming solutions MUST provide re-homing transparency for transport-layer sessions; i.e. exchange of data between devices on the multihomed site and devices elsewhere on the Internet may proceed with no greater interruption than that associated with the transient packet loss during the re-homing event. New transport-layer sessions MUST be able to be created following a re-homing event. Transport-layer sessions include those involving transport-layer protocols such as TCP, UDP and SCTP over IP. Applications which communicate over raw IP and other network-layer protocols MAY also enjoy re-homing transparency. 3.1.7 Impact on DNS Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with the observed dynamics of the current DNS system, or the solutions MUST have demonstrate that the modified name resolution system required to support them are readily deployable. 3.1.8 Packet Filtering Multihoming solutions MUST NOT preclude filtering packets with forged or otherwise inappropriate source IP addresses at the administrative boundary of the multihomed site. 3.2 Additional Requirements 3.2.1 Scalability Current IPV4 multihoming practices contribute to the significant growth currently observed in the state held in the global inter- provider routing system; this is a concern both because of the hardware requirements it imposes and also because of the impact on the stability of the routing system. This issue is discussed in great detail in [9]. A new IPv6 multihoming architecture MUST scale to accommodate orders of magnitude more multihomed sites without imposing unreasonable requirements on the routing system. 3.2.2 Impact on Routers The solution MAY require changes to IPv6 router implementations, but these changes must be either minor, or in the form of logically separate functions added to existing functions. Such changes MUST NOT prevent normal single-homed operation, and routers implementing these changes must be able to interoperate fully with hosts and routers not implementing them. 3.2.3 Impact on Hosts The solution MUST NOT destroy IPv6 connectivity for a legacy host implementing RFC 2373 [5], RFC 2460 [7], RFC 2553 [8] and other basic IPv6 specifications current in November 2001. That is to say, if a host can work in a single-homed site, it must still be able to work in a multihomed site, even if it cannot benefit from site- multihoming. It would be compatible with this requirement for such a host to lose connectivity if a site lost connectivity to one transit provider, despite the fact that other transit provider connections were still operational. If the solution requires changes to the host stack, these changes MUST be either minor, or in the form of logically separate functions added to existing functions. If the solution requires changes to the socket API and/or the transport layer, it MUST be possible to retain the original socket API and transport protocols in parallel, even if they cannot benefit from multihoming. The multihoming solution MAY allow host or application changes if that would enhance session survivability. 3.2.4 Interaction between Hosts and the Routing System The solution MAY involve interaction between a site's hosts and its routing system; such an interaction MUST be simple, scaleable and securable. 3.2.5 Operations and Management It MUST be posssible for staff responsible for the operation of a site to monitor and configure the site's multihoming system. 3.2.6 Cooperation between Transit Providers A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site and its transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation (relating specifically to the multihomed site) directly between the transit providers. 3.2.7 Multiple Solutions There MAY be more than one approach to multihoming, provided all approaches are orthogonal (e.g. each approach addresses a distinct segment or category within the site multihoming problem. Multiple solutions will incur a greater management overhead within the IESG, however, and the adopted solutions SHOULD attempt to cover as many multihoming scenarios as possible. 4. Security Considerations A multihomed site MUST NOT be more vulnerable to security breaches than a traditionally IPv4-multihomed site. References [1] Abley, J., Black, B. and V. Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Motivation, Practices and Limitations (work-in-progress)", I-D draft-ietf- multi6-v4-multihoming-00, June 2001. [2] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J. and K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter- Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", RFC 1519, September 1993. [3] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", RFC 1918, February 1996. [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [5] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. [6] Hinden, R., O'Dell, M. and S. Deering, "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374, July 1998. [7] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [8] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999. [9] Huston, G., "Analyzing the Internet's BGP Routing Table", January 2001. Authors' Addresses Benjamin Black Layer8 Networks EMail: ben@layer8.net Vijay Gill AOL Time Warner EMail: vijaygill9@aol.com Joe Abley MFN 10805 Old River Road Komoka, ON N0L 1R0 Canada Phone: +1 519 641 4368 EMail: jabley@mfnx.net Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Tue May 28 13:58:58 2002 Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26643 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:58:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17ClFM-000CTb-00 for multi6-data@psg.com; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:59:00 -0700 Received: from fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com ([66.185.86.72]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17ClFL-000CTR-00 for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:58:59 -0700 Received: from hyperion ([24.156.109.151]) by fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (InterMail vM.5.01.04.13 201-253-122-122-113-20020313) with ESMTP id <20020528175857.CHJL487166.fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@hyperion> for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:58:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:29:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481) Cc: ben@layer8.net, vijaygill9@aol.com To: multi6@ops.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: revised requirements draft From: Joe Abley Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <948199D8-7264-11D6-BC8A-00039312C852@automagic.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.156.109.151] using ID at Tue, 28 May 2002 13:58:57 -0400 Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Thomas and Sean asked me to make some edits to the -02 requirements draft, drawing on what consensus I could see from the list archives (including Michael Py's rolling summary of issues, which was very handy). What follows below is a candidate -03 draft. Here's a summary of the pertinent diffs; comments most welcome. Note that this draft has not been sent to the rfc editor yet, so if people have comments I'll harvest the diffs paragraph by paragraph and make changes appropriately. |3.1.7 Impact on DNS | | Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with the observed | dynamics of the current DNS system, or the solutions MUST have | demonstrate that the modified name resolution system required to | support them are readily deployable. New section, based on suggestions from Christian Huitema and RJ Atkinson. Brian Carpenter included a requirement that a proposed solution should include an analysis of its impact on the DNS, which I omitted since it seems inherent in 3.1.7 that analysis is required. |3.1.8 Packet Filtering | | Multihoming solutions MUST NOT preclude filtering packets with forged | or otherwise inappropriate source IP addresses at the administrative | boundary of the multi-homed site. | 3.2.6 Cooperation between Transit Providers A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site and its | transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation (relating | specifically to the multi-homed site) directly between the transit | providers. The phrase in brackets was added. This makes the grammar horrible; sorry about that. |3.2.7 Multiple Solutions | There MAY be more than one approach to multi-homing, provided all | approaches are orthogonal (e.g. each approach addresses a distinct | segment or category within the site multi-homing problem. Multiple | solutions will incur a greater management overhead within the IESG, | however, and the adopted solutions SHOULD attempt to cover as many | multi-homing scenarios as possible. This covers, I think, the issue raised by Christian, and is based on his text with suggestions from RJ Atkinson and Rob Rockell. 4. Security Considerations | A multihomed site MUST NOT be more vulnerable to security breaches | than a traditionally IPv4-multihomed site. This requirement has become weaker, but more reasonable (suggested by Eliot Lear, Rob Rockell). There was an additional requirement suggested by Christian about single points of failure in topologies involving home agents, but I see he offered to drop the requirement since it didn't stimulate a lot of conversation. The remaining contentious point that I can find is with section 3.1.2: 3.1.2 Load Sharing By multihoming, a site MUST be able to distribute both inbound and outbound traffic between multiple transit providers. This requirement is for concurrent use of the multiple transit providers, not just the usage of one provider over one interval of time and another provider over a different interval. I didn't see clear consensus on this point. My personal opinion is that we should keep it, since it's an operational necessity in the current network and I don't see how deployment of a new new multihoming strategy could proceed without it. Complete draft follows. Joe Site Multihoming in IPv6 (multi6) B. Black Internet-Draft Layer8 Networks Expires: November 26, 2002 V. Gill AOL Time Warner J. Abley MFN May 28, 2002 Requirements for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2002. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract Site-multihoming, i.e. connecting to more than one IP service provider, is an essential component of service for many sites which are part of the Internet. Existing IPv4 site-multihoming practices, described in a companion draft [1], provides a set of capabilities that must be accommodated by the adopted site-multihoming architecture in IPv6, and a set of limitations that must be overcome, relating in particular to scalability. This document outlines a set of requirements for a new IPv6 site- multihoming architecture. 1. Introduction Current IPv4 site-multihoming practices have been added on to the CIDR architecture [2], which assumes that routing table entries can be aggregated based upon a hierarchy of customers and service providers [1]. However, it appears that this hierarchy is being supplanted by a dense mesh of interconnections [9]. Additionally, there has been an enormous growth in the number of multihomed sites. For purposes of redundancy and load-sharing, the multihomed address blocks, which are almost always a longer prefix than the provider aggregate, are announced along with the larger, covering aggregate originated by the provider. This contributes to the rapidly-increasing size of the global routing table. This explosion places significant stress on the inter-provider routing system. Continued growth of both the Internet and the practice of site- multihoming will seriously exacerbate this stress. The site- multihoming architecture for IPv6 should allow the routing system to scale more pleasantly. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4]. A "site" is an entity autonomously operating a network using IP and, in particular, determining the addressing plan and routing policy for that network. This definition is intended to be equivalent to "enterprise" as defined in [3]. A "transit provider" operates a site which directly provides connectivity to the Internet to one or more external sites. The connectivity provided extends beyond the transit provider's own site. A transit provider's site is directly connected to the sites for which it provides transit. A "multihomed" site is one with more than one transit provider. "Site-multihoming" is the practice of arranging a site to be multihomed. The term "re-homing" denotes a transition of a site between two states of connectedness, due to a change in the connectivity between the site and its transit providers' sites. 3. Multihoming Requirements 3.1 Capabilities of IPv4 Multihoming The following capabilities of current IPv4 multihoming practices MUST be supported by an IPv6 multihoming architecture. IPv4 multihoming is discussed in more detail in [1]. 3.1.1 Redundancy By multihoming, a site MUST be able to insulate itself from certain failure modes within one or more transit providers, as well as failures in the network providing interconnection among one or more transit providers. Infrastructural commonalities below the IP layer may result in connectivity which is apparently diverse sharing single points of failure. For example, two separate DS3 circuits ordered from different suppliers and connecting a site to independent transit providers may share a single conduit from the street into a building; in this case backhoe-fade of both circuits may be experienced due to a single incident in the street. The two circuits are said to "share fate". The multihoming architecture MUST accommodate (in the general case, issues of shared fate notwithstanding) continuity of connectivity during the following failures: o Physical failure, such as a fiber cut, or router failure, o Logical link failure, such as a misbehaving router interface, o Routing protocol failure, such as a BGP peer reset, o Transit provider failure, such as a backbone-wide IGP failure, and o Exchange failure, such as a BGP reset on an inter-provider peering. 3.1.2 Load Sharing By multihoming, a site MUST be able to distribute both inbound and outbound traffic between multiple transit providers. This requirement is for concurrent use of the multiple transit providers, not just the usage of one provider over one interval of time and another provider over a different interval. 3.1.3 Performance By multihoming, a site MUST be able to protect itself from performance difficulties directly between the site's transit providers. For example, suppose site E obtains transit from transit providers T1 and T2, and there is long-term congestion between T1 and T2. The multihoming architecture MUST allow E to ensure that in normal operation none of its traffic is carried over the congested interconnection T1-T2. The process by which this is achieved MAY be a manual one. A multihomed site MUST be able to distribute inbound traffic from particular multiple transit providers according to the particular address range within their site which is sourcing or sinking the traffic. 3.1.4 Policy A customer may choose to multihome for a variety of policy reasons beyond technical scope (e.g. cost, acceptable use conditions, etc.) For example, customer C homed to ISP A may wish to shift traffic of a certain class or application, NNTP, for example, to ISP B as matter of policy. A new IPv6 multihoming proposal MUST provide support for site-multihoming for external policy reasons. 3.1.5 Simplicity As any proposed multihoming solution must be deployed in real networks with real customers, simplicity is paramount. The current multihoming solution is quite straightforward to deploy and maintain. A new IPv6 multihoming proposal MUST NOT be substantially more complex to deploy and operate than current IPv4 multihoming practices. 3.1.6 Transport-Layer Survivability Multihoming solutions MUST provide re-homing transparency for transport-layer sessions; i.e. exchange of data between devices on the multihomed site and devices elsewhere on the Internet may proceed with no greater interruption than that associated with the transient packet loss during the re-homing event. New transport-layer sessions MUST be able to be created following a re-homing event. Transport-layer sessions include those involving transport-layer protocols such as TCP, UDP and SCTP over IP. Applications which communicate over raw IP and other network-layer protocols MAY also enjoy re-homing transparency. 3.1.7 Impact on DNS Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with the observed dynamics of the current DNS system, or the solutions MUST have demonstrate that the modified name resolution system required to support them are readily deployable. 3.1.8 Packet Filtering Multihoming solutions MUST NOT preclude filtering packets with forged or otherwise inappropriate source IP addresses at the administrative boundary of the multihomed site. 3.2 Additional Requirements 3.2.1 Scalability Current IPV4 multihoming practices contribute to the significant growth currently observed in the state held in the global inter- provider routing system; this is a concern both because of the hardware requirements it imposes and also because of the impact on the stability of the routing system. This issue is discussed in great detail in [9]. A new IPv6 multihoming architecture MUST scale to accommodate orders of magnitude more multihomed sites without imposing unreasonable requirements on the routing system. 3.2.2 Impact on Routers The solution MAY require changes to IPv6 router implementations, but these changes must be either minor, or in the form of logically separate functions added to existing functions. Such changes MUST NOT prevent normal single-homed operation, and routers implementing these changes must be able to interoperate fully with hosts and routers not implementing them. 3.2.3 Impact on Hosts The solution MUST NOT destroy IPv6 connectivity for a legacy host implementing RFC 2373 [5], RFC 2460 [7], RFC 2553 [8] and other basic IPv6 specifications current in November 2001. That is to say, if a host can work in a single-homed site, it must still be able to work in a multihomed site, even if it cannot benefit from site- multihoming. It would be compatible with this requirement for such a host to lose connectivity if a site lost connectivity to one transit provider, despite the fact that other transit provider connections were still operational. If the solution requires changes to the host stack, these changes MUST be either minor, or in the form of logically separate functions added to existing functions. If the solution requires changes to the socket API and/or the transport layer, it MUST be possible to retain the original socket API and transport protocols in parallel, even if they cannot benefit from multihoming. The multihoming solution MAY allow host or application changes if that would enhance session survivability. 3.2.4 Interaction between Hosts and the Routing System The solution MAY involve interaction between a site's hosts and its routing system; such an interaction MUST be simple, scaleable and securable. 3.2.5 Operations and Management It MUST be posssible for staff responsible for the operation of a site to monitor and configure the site's multihoming system. 3.2.6 Cooperation between Transit Providers A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site and its transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation (relating specifically to the multihomed site) directly between the transit providers. 3.2.7 Multiple Solutions There MAY be more than one approach to multihoming, provided all approaches are orthogonal (e.g. each approach addresses a distinct segment or category within the site multihoming problem. Multiple solutions will incur a greater management overhead within the IESG, however, and the adopted solutions SHOULD attempt to cover as many multihoming scenarios as possible. 4. Security Considerations A multihomed site MUST NOT be more vulnerable to security breaches than a traditionally IPv4-multihomed site. References [1] Abley, J., Black, B. and V. Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Motivation, Practices and Limitations (work-in-progress)", I-D draft-ietf- multi6-v4-multihoming-00, June 2001. [2] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J. and K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter- Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", RFC 1519, September 1993. [3] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", RFC 1918, February 1996. [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [5] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. [6] Hinden, R., O'Dell, M. and S. Deering, "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374, July 1998. [7] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [8] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999. [9] Huston, G., "Analyzing the Internet's BGP Routing Table", January 2001. Authors' Addresses Benjamin Black Layer8 Networks EMail: ben@layer8.net Vijay Gill AOL Time Warner EMail: vijaygill9@aol.com Joe Abley MFN 10805 Old River Road Komoka, ON N0L 1R0 Canada Phone: +1 519 641 4368 EMail: jabley@mfnx.net Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Wed May 29 05:21:09 2002 Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08249 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 05:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17CzbU-000Elg-00 for multi6-data@psg.com; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:18:48 -0700 Received: from mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com ([194.196.110.15]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17CzbT-000ElG-00 for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:18:47 -0700 Received: from sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (sp15at17.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.103]) by mail-gw1.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22802; Wed, 29 May 2002 10:17:31 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (dhcp22-167.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.22.167]) by sp15en17.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA67176; Wed, 29 May 2002 10:18:08 +0100 Message-ID: <3CF49D10.82E9A26A@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 11:19:12 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Abley CC: multi6@ops.ietf.org, ben@layer8.net, vijaygill9@aol.com Subject: Re: revised requirements draft References: <948199D8-7264-11D6-BC8A-00039312C852@automagic.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My opinion: ship it. We need to get done with requirements so that we can proceed to look at solutions. Twiddling the requirements to achieve universal consensus isn't productive. Brian Joe Abley wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thomas and Sean asked me to make some edits to the -02 requirements > draft, drawing on what consensus I could see from the list archives > (including Michael Py's rolling summary of issues, which was very > handy). ... From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Thu May 30 00:45:52 2002 Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13866 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 00:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17DHlh-000DcO-00 for multi6-data@psg.com; Wed, 29 May 2002 21:42:33 -0700 Received: from pec.etri.re.kr ([129.254.114.50]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17DHlf-000DcE-00 for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 29 May 2002 21:42:32 -0700 Received: from paulnb2 (paul2.etri.re.kr [129.254.112.195]) by pec.etri.re.kr (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g4U4h9C22912; Thu, 30 May 2002 13:43:09 +0900 (KST) Message-ID: <006c01c20793$1c30c3a0$c370fe81@6ants.net> From: "Jaehoon Jeong" To: Cc: "Multi6 WG" References: Subject: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?UmU6IFtNdWx0aWhvbWluZyCw+sGmXSA0wvcgyLjAx7fP?= Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:33:13 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0069_01C207DE.8BDB3B90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01C207DE.8BDB3B90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 wPrI8SDGwL+hvK0gwMew3yDBtsGkx8+/qSC4u764teW4rrDavcC0z7TZLg0KvPaw7cfPvLy/5C4N Cg0KwaTA58jGILXluLIuDQogIC0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0gDQogIEZyb206 IEpvbmd3b29rIFdvbyANCiAgVG86IEphZWhvb24gSmVvbmcgDQogIFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBN YXkgMzAsIDIwMDIgMTE6MzMgQU0NCiAgU3ViamVjdDogUkU6IFtNdWx0aWhvbWluZyCw+sGmXSA0 wvcgyLjAx7fPDQoNCg0KICDBpMDnyMa01A0KDQogIERyYWZ0ILanua6/oSC02b3DIG1haWwgteW4 s7TPtNkuIA0KDQogIL7uwaggsObIssDMIL74vu4guLu+uMC7ILj4ILXlt8i0wrWlIL7Guau3obW1 IMD6wNogudcgsdcgvPi8rbChILnOsKjHz7HiILanua6/oSDB98GivrK9w7TCsNQgvu62s7exwfa/ 5D8gIEZpcnN0IEF1dGhvcrTCIMH3waIgvrK45yBtYWluIGlkZWG4piCzvSC757b3wMy+7r7fIMfP sO0gs6q408H2IGF1dGhvcrXptbUgsdcgsPjH5bW1v6Egtfu28yCx4sDnsKEgtce+3yC1ySC17SDH z7nHt84gwaawoSC+srjpIL+pt68guc6wqCDH0SC6zrrQwLsgsMe15biusNQgtcmx7iC6wSCwxsGk wNS0z7TZIC0gsKG3ySBmaXJzdCBhdXRob3IgILmuwaYsIL+stOsgudcgRVRSSb+hILSpsKEgYXV0 aG9yt84gtem+7rChvt8gx8+0wrChILXuLg0KDQogIMG7ILT1ILv9sKIgx9gguri9w7HiILnZtvi0 z7TZLg0KDQogIMG+v+0NCg0KICAqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKg0KDQogIL+svLy068fQsbMsIL+ssbixs7z2LCBQaC5ELg0KICBF bWFpbDogIGpvbmd3b29rQHlvbnNlaS5hYy5rciwgam9uZ3dvb2tAYWx1bW5pLnVzYy5lZHUNCiAg VVJMOiBodHRwOi8vY2VuZy51c2MuZWR1L35qb3dvbw0KICDA/MitOiAyMTIzLTQ3NDUgKE8pDQog ICAgICAgICAgICAzNjUtODM3MCAoRikNCiAgwda80jogvK2/773DILyttOu5rrG4IL3Fw8y1vyAx MzS5+MH2DQogICAgICAgICAgICC/rLy8tOvH0LGzILD4x9C/+CAyMjfIow0KDQogICoqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqIA0KDQo= ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01C207DE.8BDB3B90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPg0KPE1FVEEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PWtzX2NfNTYwMS0xOTg3Ij4NCjxNRVRBIGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1T SFRNTCA2LjAwLjI2MDAuMCIgbmFtZT1HRU5FUkFUT1I+DQo8U1RZTEU+PC9TVFlMRT4NCjwvSEVB RD4NCjxCT0RZIGJnQ29sb3I9I2ZmZmZmZj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yPsD6yPEgxsC/obyt IMDHsN8gwbbBpMfPv6kguLu+uLXluK6w2r3AtM+02S48L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05U IHNpemU9Mj689rDtx8+8vL/kLjwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yPjwvRk9O VD4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yPsGkwOfIxiC15biyLjwvRk9OVD48L0RJ Vj4NCjxCTE9DS1FVT1RFIGRpcj1sdHIgDQpzdHlsZT0iUEFERElORy1SSUdIVDogMHB4OyBQQURE SU5HLUxFRlQ6IDVweDsgTUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDVweDsgQk9SREVSLUxFRlQ6ICMwMDAwMDAgMnB4 IHNvbGlkOyBNQVJHSU4tUklHSFQ6IDBweCI+DQogIDxESVYgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQ6IDEwcHQgsby4 siI+LS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSA8L0RJVj4NCiAgPERJViANCiAgc3R5bGU9 IkJBQ0tHUk9VTkQ6ICNlNGU0ZTQ7IEZPTlQ6IDEwcHQgsby4sjsgZm9udC1jb2xvcjogYmxhY2si PjxCPkZyb206PC9CPiA8QSANCiAgdGl0bGU9am9uZ3dvb2tAeW9uc2VpLmFjLmtyIGhyZWY9Im1h aWx0bzpqb25nd29va0B5b25zZWkuYWMua3IiPkpvbmd3b29rIA0KICBXb288L0E+IDwvRElWPg0K ICA8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJGT05UOiAxMHB0ILG8uLIiPjxCPlRvOjwvQj4gPEEgdGl0bGU9cGF1bEBl dHJpLnJlLmtyIA0KICBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86cGF1bEBldHJpLnJlLmtyIj5KYWVob29uIEplb25n PC9BPiA8L0RJVj4NCiAgPERJViBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVDogMTBwdCCxvLiyIj48Qj5TZW50OjwvQj4g VGh1cnNkYXksIE1heSAzMCwgMjAwMiAxMTozMyBBTTwvRElWPg0KICA8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJGT05U OiAxMHB0ILG8uLIiPjxCPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9CPiBSRTogW011bHRpaG9taW5nILD6waZdIDTC9yDI uMDHt888L0RJVj4NCiAgPERJVj48QlI+PC9ESVY+DQogIDxESVY+PFNQQU4gY2xhc3M9OTc3NTcy NTAyLTMwMDUyMDAyPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIgDQogIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAw ZmY+waTA58jGtNQ8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvRElWPg0KICA8RElWPjxTUEFOIGNsYXNzPTk3NzU3 MjUwMi0zMDA1MjAwMj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iIA0KICBjb2xvcj0jMDAw MGZmPjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQogIDxESVY+PFNQQU4gY2xhc3M9OTc3NTcy NTAyLTMwMDUyMDAyPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIgDQogIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAw ZmY+RHJhZnQgtqe5rr+hILTZvcMgbWFpbCC15biztM+02S4gPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L0RJVj4N CiAgPERJVj48U1BBTiBjbGFzcz05Nzc1NzI1MDItMzAwNTIwMDI+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMg TmV3IFJvbWFuIiANCiAgY29sb3I9IzAwMDBmZj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0K ICA8RElWPjxTUEFOIGNsYXNzPTk3NzU3MjUwMi0zMDA1MjAwMj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBO ZXcgUm9tYW4iIA0KICBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMGZmPr7uwaggsObIssDMIL74vu4guLu+uMC7ILj4ILXl t8i0wrWlIDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4gDQogIGNsYXNzPTk3NzU3MjUwMi0zMDA1MjAwMj48 Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmY+vsa5q7ehtbUgwPrA2iC5 1yANCiAgsdcgvPi8rbChILnOsKjHz7HiILanua6/oSDB98GivrK9w7TCsNQgvu62s7exwfa/5D8m bmJzcDsgRmlyc3QgQXV0aG9ytMIgwffBoiC+srjnIG1haW4gaWRlYbimILO9ILvntvfAzL7uvt8g x8+w7SANCiAgs6q408H2IGF1dGhvcrXptbUgsdcgsPjH5bW1v6Egtfu28yCx4sDnsKEgtce+3yC1 ySC17SDHz7nHt84gwaawoSC+srjpIL+pt68guc6wqCDH0SC6zrrQwLsgsMe15biusNQgtcmx7iC6 wSCwxsGkwNS0z7TZIC0gsKG3ySANCiAgZmlyc3QgYXV0aG9yJm5ic3A7ILmuwaYsIL+stOsgudcg RVRSSb+hILSpsKEgYXV0aG9yt84gtem+7rChvt8gx8+0wrChILXuLjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9E SVY+DQogIDxESVY+PFNQQU4gY2xhc3M9OTc3NTcyNTAyLTMwMDUyMDAyPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9IlRp bWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIgDQogIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmY+PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJ Vj4NCiAgPERJVj48U1BBTiBjbGFzcz05Nzc1NzI1MDItMzAwNTIwMDI+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0iVGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiANCiAgY29sb3I9IzAwMDBmZj7BuyC09SC7/bCiIMfYILq4vcOx4iC52bb4 tM+02S48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvRElWPg0KICA8RElWPjxTUEFOIGNsYXNzPTk3NzU3MjUwMi0z MDA1MjAwMj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iIA0KICBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMGZmPjwv Rk9OVD48L1NQQU4+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQogIDxESVY+PFNQQU4gY2xhc3M9OTc3NTcyNTAyLTMw MDUyMDAyPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIgDQogIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmY+wb6/ 7TwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9ESVY+DQogIDxESVY+PFNQQU4gY2xhc3M9OTc3NTcyNTAyLTMwMDUy MDAyPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIgDQogIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwZmY+PC9GT05U PjwvU1BBTj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCiAgPERJVj48U1BBTiBjbGFzcz05Nzc1NzI1MDItMzAwNTIw MDI+DQogIDxQPjxGT05UIA0KICBzaXplPTI+KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKio8QlI+PEJSPr+svLy068fQsbMsIA0KICC/rLG4sbO8 9iwgUGguRC48QlI+RW1haWw6Jm5ic3A7IGpvbmd3b29rQHlvbnNlaS5hYy5rciwgDQogIGpvbmd3 b29rQGFsdW1uaS51c2MuZWR1PEJSPlVSTDogPEEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2NlbmcudXNjLmVkdS9+ am93b28iIA0KICB0YXJnZXQ9X2JsYW5rPmh0dHA6Ly9jZW5nLnVzYy5lZHUvfmpvd29vPC9BPjxC Uj7A/MitOiAyMTIzLTQ3NDUgDQogIChPKTxCUj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgMzY1LTgzNzAgDQogIChGKTxCUj7B1rzSOiC8rb/v vcMgvK2067musbggvcXDzLW/IA0KICAxMzS5+MH2PEJSPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyC/rLy8tOvH0LGzILD4x9C/+CANCiAgMjI3 yKM8QlI+PEJSPioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqPC9GT05UPiANCiAgPC9QPjwvU1BBTj48L0RJVj48L0JMT0NLUVVPVEU+PC9CT0RZ PjwvSFRNTD4NCg== ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01C207DE.8BDB3B90-- From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Thu May 30 13:04:37 2002 Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13201 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 13:04:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17DTK0-0002qe-00 for multi6-data@psg.com; Thu, 30 May 2002 10:02:44 -0700 Received: from fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com ([66.185.86.72]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17DTJz-0002qT-00 for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 30 May 2002 10:02:43 -0700 Received: from hyperion ([24.156.109.151]) by fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (InterMail vM.5.01.04.13 201-253-122-122-113-20020313) with ESMTP id <20020530170235.SAHA487166.fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@hyperion>; Thu, 30 May 2002 13:02:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:02:37 -0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=5F[Multihoming=5F=3DEA=3DB3=3DBC=3DEC=3DA0=3D9C]=5F?= =?UTF-8?Q?4=3DEC=3DB0=3DA8=5F=3DED=3D9A=C2=8C=EC=9D=98=EB=A1=9D?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481) Cc: , "Multi6 WG" To: "Jaehoon Jeong" From: Joe Abley In-Reply-To: <006c01c20793$1c30c3a0$c370fe81@6ants.net> Message-Id: <0B727ED8-73EF-11D6-8905-00039312C852@automagic.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.156.109.151] using ID at Thu, 30 May 2002 13:02:35 -0400 Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id NAA13201 Anybody here speak Korean *and* English? On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 12:33 , Jaehoon Jeong wrote: > 저희 팀에서 의견 조정하여 말씀드리겠습니다. > 수고하세요. >   > 정재훈 드림. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jongwook Woo > To: Jaehoon Jeong > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:33 AM > Subject: RE: [Multihoming 과제] 4차 회의록 > > 정재훈님 >   > Draft 때문에 다시 mail 드립니다. >   > 어젠 경황이 없어 말씀을 못 드렸는데아무래도 저자 및 그 순서가 민감하기 때문에 직접쓰시는게 > 어떨런지요?  First Author는 직접 쓰며 main idea를 낸 사람이어야 하고 나머지 author들 > 도 그 공헌도에 따라 기재가 되야 될 듯 하므로 제가 쓰면 여러 민감 한 부분을 건드리게 될까 봐 걱정 > 입니다 - 가령 first author  문제, 연대 및 ETRI에 누가 author로 들어가야 하는가 등. >   > 좀 더 생각 해 보시기 바랍니다. >   > 종욱 >   > > ******************************************************** > > 연세대학교, 연구교수, Ph.D. > Email:  jongwook@yonsei.ac.kr, jongwook@alumni.usc.edu > URL: http://ceng.usc.edu/~jowoo > 전화: 2123-4745 (O) >           365-8370 (F) > 주소: 서울시 서대문구 신촌동 134번지 >           연세대학교 공학원 227호 > > ******************************************************** >