Subject: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:19:10 -0800

Kurtis,

> Tony Li wrote:
> However, if we do go down the path of long prefix
> distribution, the core is almost certain to implode.
> Here, there be dragons that we should avoid.

I heard Tony's comment from many other persons too. Although I do see
some potential in what you wrote, and as mentioned yesterday I see it
from a different prospective, allow me to remind you what reality here
is:

Quote from the one and only document in this WG:

> 3.2.1 Scalability
>   [snip]
>    A new IPv6 multihoming architecture MUST scale to
>    accommodate orders of magnitude more multihomed
>    sites without imposing unreasonable requirements
>    on the routing system.

As chair, you simply can not recommend to go a way that blatantly
violates the only working document we have. This text is clear, and it's
a "MUST" not a "must" which has a very specific meaning as per RFC 2119.

Michel.

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:22:29 -0800

> a "MUST" not a "must" which has a very specific meaning as per RFC 

To be pedantic, the requirements doc doesn't specify the starting 
point: orders of magnitude more multihomed sites than exist today on 
the v6 network is still easily achievable using 
draft-kurtis-call-me-when-we-get-1000-routes-in-the-dfz-00.

Joe

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:07:22 +0100

> draft-kurtis-call-me-when-we-get-1000-routes-in-the-dfz-00.

That is true, But it does bring up the issue of the status of the 
requirements document. From what I know it has been ready to be shipped 
to the IESG for last-call for quite some time. Some people have 
privately expressed to me that they see little point in moving this 
forward. I want to disagree, as I do think that this documents provides 
a good base-line and a tool for us as chairs to keep people focused on 
what we need to achieve. That said, I do not think that "requirements" 
are the right word as we will have different requirements at different 
times (and I know that people disagrees to this statement).

I have discussed this with Joe and if I have understood him correctly 
he is for updating the document to better reflect this as 
considerations for potential multihoming solutions. I suggest that we 
hold off discussions on this until we have a updated document and then 
see where to take it from there.

...and yes, I do realize that this creates problems with the charter 
and the milestones, but that is the least of my worries at the moment 
:-). We need to fix that anyway.

- kurtis -

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:45:18 +0100

I'm with Kurt here. We need this document on record, and if
people are worried by the R-word, then don't call them requirements.

Call them desirable properties, and lose the RFC 2119 language.
Let's not get hung up on our own process hooks.

   Brian