Subject: Requirement regarding load sharing

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:43:28 +0100 (CET)

I recall folks talking about being able to apply policy to
load sharing on the mailing list, but section 3.1.2 in the 
requirements document in silent on this issue.

Even if this is not a "MUST" requirement, if people actually think
it would be needed in order to capture current or future multihoming use
it would be good to write it down in the document.
I think the existence of such a need  matters when it comes to discussing 
potential solutions further, since such a policy would need to apply to 
the site and not merely be a local matter on each host.

  Erik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:25:14 +0100

Well, I suspect this would actually be a source of confusion.

I don't disagree that load balancing mechanisms need to be
managed by a policy system. But only some load balancing mechanisms
are likely to be the same as multi-homing mechanisms. Somehow I'd 
rather keep the issues separate at the requirements level.

  Brian

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:00:26 +0100 (CET)

> rather keep the issues separate at the requirements level.

What type of confusion are you concerned about?

Unless there is load sharing in site multihoming there isn't
any need for a load sharing policy.
Thus if such a policy is desirable/required/nice to have
it might make sense to add something in the load sharing
section saying something of this general flavor  
	It is desirable/required/nice to have a load sharing control
	by the site administrator so that the outbound traffic can be
	directed to ... 

Maybe there is also a desire for control of inbound traffic (through
control of source address selection/locator selection).

  Erik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:31:32 +0100

> What type of confusion are you concerned about?

see below...

> control of source address selection/locator selection).

I'm confused about why I would mention this in a document about
multihoming. 

   Brian

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:37:31 +0100 (CET)

> I'm confused about why I would mention this in a document about

Because the multihoming document seems to say that load sharing (as well
as redundancy ...) is a motivation for multihoming. In fact it says
that supporting load sharing is a requirement.
Whether or not, and the location of, policy controls apply to the load
sharing is an interesting question for folks trying to understand the
constraints on the solution space.

  Erik