Subject: Re: Pseudo "last call" for draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:10:35 +0900

>>From an enterprise end-user point of view, this approach adds more
>confusion to a solution that already has major concerns.  The number 1
>concern that we have to deal with in this multihoming scheme is the path
>selection by the originating TCP stack through its selection of source and
>destination addresses.

	draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260 does not add more confusion, but protects
	you from unreachability of certain prefix in multiple-prefix-assigned-
	to-site style of multihoming.  without draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260,
	source address selection problem is a critical task since if you
	pick P::a (from P::a and Q::b) while P::/48 is unreachable, you are
	dead.  with draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260, you can pick either P::a or
	Q::b, regardless from the external link status (tunnels will always
	ensure that P::/48 and Q::/48 are reachable, assuming that the upstream
	ISP is reachable).

itojun

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:12:22 -0500

I see no harm in publishing this as Informational. My most urgent concern
is still to see the multi6 requirements published, so that we can start
to evaluate all proposed solutions somewhat objectively.

   Brian

Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> The document "IPv6 multihoming support at site exit routers"
> <draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260-02.txt> came out of the IPng WG, which
> has requested that it be published as an informational RFC. Given that
> the subject of the draft overlaps with the main focus of this group,
> we'd be interested in getting WG feedback on the contents of the
> document. Namely:
> 
>  - is the document reasonable to publish as an informational RFC as
>    is, or are some specific changes appropriate?
> 
>  - How feasible do the techniques described in the document appear to
>    be from the perspective of an operator?
> 
>  - What are the main (if any) limitations to using the described
>    techniques from an operational perspective? Are these limitations,
>    if any, adequately described in the document?
> 
> Explicit feedback (including "looks fine to me") from all those who
> read it would be helpful.
> 
> Sean & Thomas
> Multi6 WG Chairs