Subject: Agenda for Atlanta

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:20:13 +0200 (CEST)

There is one thing I'm not entirely clear on about the IETF meetings.
Are the wg sessions usually only/mostly populated by the same people
that are on the wg mailinglist, or do these sessions draw a wider
public?

I'm not sure doing what we are doing on this mailinglist in person for a
couple of hours will achieve all that much. (A good bar brawl might
help, though.)

However, if we can get some routing, transport protocol and mobility
people together, we may actually come up with some new insights or even
a broad consensus.

What I have in mind is more or less a "present our findings" session. As
having a wg session requires some consensus, please let me know if you
find this useful, and whether you like some other agenda item in
addition to this or as a replacement.

Iljitsch

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:11:54 -0400

On Wednesday, Oct 23, 2002, at 08:20 America/Montreal, Iljitsch van 

> that are on the wg mailinglist, or do these sessions draw a wider

Generally a subset of the mailing list attends a given WG meeting,
for reasons of cost and calendar complexity.  They generally do not
draw a wider audience.

> people together, we may actually come up with some new insights or even

	The routing people who have showed up here are not slouches,
yet seem to be ignored by some of the vocal multihoming advocates.
Sigh.  And I don't think we lack for transport or architectural clue
here either.

Ran

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:54:45 +0200 (CEST)

> for reasons of cost and calendar complexity.  They generally do not

Ok. I assume more people will show if we tell them we may be straying
onto their turf.

Although nobody bothered to answer directly, it seems there is consensus
that the requirements can be accepted with some small changes. Good.

So what happens next?

As I see it, we are ready to start working on (relatively) short term
routing-only, no changes to code solutions. Some people feel these
solutions are inherently inadequate. I don't think that's sufficient
reason to not work on this. It may be sufficient reason to not implement
it later, but let's see what we can come up with first.

We are NOT ready to start working on solutions that use multiple
addresses, as there are no good routing <-> source address selection <->
filtering/failing <-> session rehoming mechanisms. I think it
would be good to come up with a multi address requirements document. (Or
maybe there already is one and I missed it?)

When the multi address thing is clear, work can start on address agile
transport protocols. However, I don't think this wg is the right place
for developing individual transport protocols.

There are already several proposals for tunnelling/aliasing solutions.
However, having several of those that don't interoperate would be a Bad
Thing so I think when we've sorted out the multi address thing, this wg
should focus on making different solutions in this area interoperate, or
maybe come up with a single solution that is so good others aren't
needed.

In the mean time, the IRTF can brood on IPv7 and perfect routing. The
right answer too late is just as wrong as the wrong answer immediately.

There is one thing I want to stress: we all have opinions on which type
of solution is better. However, at some point input along the lines of
"this solution type simply doesn't cut it" stops being productive. The
IETF has produced many protocols that aren't perfect, or even very good.
Some of them are in wide use. The best way to stop a bad solution is not
to try and stop a bad solution, but to create a good solution of your
own.

> Sigh.  And I don't think we lack for transport or architectural clue

I wasn't commenting on the cluefulness of the multi6 participants. The
problem here is that so little happens. Some fresh input might be just
the thing to get things moving.

Iljitsch

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:24:59 +0300 (EEST)

> for reasons of cost and calendar complexity.  They generally do not

Disagree: a wider audience stumbles in just because there was nothing else
interesting going on.  People interested and fiddling with IPv6 stumble in
because, well, they've dealt with IPv6 and want to see what's going on,
etc.etc.

As for those people active on the list or active doing the work, fewer
attend, yes.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords