Subject: Consensus check

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 01:21:44 -0800

Well folks, a few days ago I threw down the gauntlet
and challenged the WG chairs to actually drive the
discussion, get consensus on things, and then write
down the consensus.

So far, the gauntlet is still on the floor.  ;-)

I'm going to leave it there in case anyone wants
to pick it up, but at the same time, I'd like to 
move things forward.  Thus, I'd like to truly start
the architectural discussion at the top level and
see where we can get to.  I'd also like to make
sure that we're on the same page as to the problem
that we're solving.

My read of the mail so far has been that we're
agreed:

There are many different problems that could be 
solved under the heading of multihoming, but for
now, we should focus on site multihoming.

Agree or disagree?

Tony

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:37:39 +0100 (CET)

> So far, the gauntlet is still on the floor.  ;-)

I think the chairs were busy with other things. (I think I saw Thomas at
pretty much every session I attended...)

> see where we can get to.

Sounds good to me, but maybe we should first see if we can agree this wg
is the right place to do it.

> I'd also like to make

My page would be: at least identify the places where the current
architecture doesn't fit current or reasonably expectable use of TCP/IP.
If possible, come up with an architecture that better handles these.
Then build a multihoming solution with both the new architecture and
existing implementations in mind.

> Agree or disagree?

Sort of. The top of the multihoming pyramid has all kinds of additional
complexities (connecting to the net in different parts of the world, for
instance) while the ground level may have additional restrictions
(dynamic addressing, no cooperation from ISPs). If we can solve
multihoming for everything in between, I'll be very happy.

Also, the two extremes are addressed by incremental solutions in routing
(see my message from last night) and host multihoming/mobility (see
Christians remarks+draft).

Iljitsch

---

From: "marcelo bagnulo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:43:37 +0100

Hello Tony,

> now, we should focus on site multihoming.

I am not sure that i understand,

If you are asking about end-site multi-homing as oposed to provider
multi-homing, i would agree.

If you are asking about end-site multi-homing as oposed to host
multi-homing, then:

Would you include host solutions that solve the site-multihoming problems by
providing a solution for each host within the site? I would say yes.

I would also include solutions that solve the multi-homed site problem but
do not provide a solution for multi-homed hosts.

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 08:34:14 -0800

> now, we should focus on site multihoming.

</ad>

that was my understanding of the intent of this wg

randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:49:39 +0100

Tony Li wrote:
...
> now, we should focus on site multihoming.

"This WG will consider the problem of how to multihome sites in IPv6."

The charter seems clear enough.

  Brian