Subject: RE: (multi6) control / load balancing of ingress traffic.

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:26:12 -0800

Sean,

> Sean Doran wrote:
> and I guess you might forgive us for not having done the
> WG last call already.)

I took the liberty to begin to compile the edits. If any of
The authors want it back, I'm happy to give it back :-)

> I am not certain there is a clear consensus that the document
> is finished, however, as discussed in SLC, we will do a WG last
> call as a motivation tool if people don't chime in with their
> ideas on the list and/or to the editors.

Defining requirements for something that does not exist yet is
tricky, and there is some guesswork involved.

There is a fine line to walk here. Any document can always be
perfected, and months more working on it needs to be balanced
with the fact that the lack of this document is blocking work
from being done on actual solutions.

The reason that we have decided to go to a WG last call in SLC
is because the majority thinks that, at this point in time,
the possible improvements that could hypothetically be made to
the requirements document do not outweigh the need of moving ahead.

Another thing is that we already are 4 months behind...

> So, a question is: should it be a requirement that we have
> ONE single routing system for everyone using IPv6?

Certainly not, has anyone actually suggested that?

> Are there site-multihoming requirements that fall out of
> the possibility of having several interdomain routing protocols?

I think that his question is premature. The amount of time
required to develop a new interdomain routing is not compatible
with the responsibility we have to deliver something.

My personal opinion on this is that BGP will not live forever,
and will either get a major upgrade or be replaced, but we are
looking at a 10+ year time frame.

Michel

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:54:49 -0800

Masataka,

> Masataka Ohta wrote:
> For example, your selection of addresses at a source may
> randomly distribute return traffic but unlikely balance it.
> The destination may know, from routing information, some return
> path is temporaliry unavailable or some return path is five
> times more favourable than others.

Could you come up with a text for a new requirement that does not
appear to be a blatant advertisement for my draft?

I appreciate your feedback. However, there are at least two
reasons that would make me feel that this would not be
appropriate for a new requirement:

1. As the acting document editor, I have trouble putting in a
new requirement that is favoring my own draft.

2. I am not even sure that this would be a good requirement.
Although it is too early to tell, there is some potential for
solutions that address the largest numbers of multihomed sites,
such as personal setups that are dualhomed to DSL and Cable, or
possibly mobile, to provide a multihoming solution that does not
get any feedback from the routing system.

Thanks,
Michel.