[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

WG focus (was: Re: Multi-homing (was RE: Moving backward [Re: Fourthalternative [wasRe: Moving forward ....]])


I do not think it will work. Way too many efforts failed in the v6 wg
and it is time to focus, not create again a mega wg.

I have an alternate suggestion:
- recharter the ipv6 wg to focus on advancing the protocol elements.

- move the discussion on the operational requirements around
   the issues of address stability/locality/availability to v6Ops.
   after all, v6ops is the operational wg for IPv6!

- if multi6 and/or v6ops conclude that some fundamental changes
   need to happen wrt the address architecture, charter an ad-hoc wg to
   focus on this problem.

I think this course of action will enable us to make progress on this 
sensitive issue.

    - Alain.

Tony Hain wrote:

>Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>I share Tony's frustration with long hiatus in multi6, but it 
>>seems to be unstuck at the moment. I also agree that it's 
>>hard to separate the topics, but I see no practical advantage 
>>in repatriating the multihoming issue into this WG, which 
>>already has a diverse agenda.
>Yes it is unstuck, but I strongly suggest it be brought back into this WG
>because (1) it is way outside the bounds of figuring out how to operate a
>multihomed network, and into rearchitecting the system in ways that will
>seriously undermine all assumptions about reachability and security, (2) is
>completely off the radar of anyone that did not stick it out through the
>dead time, & (3) is the root of the discussion here about the utility of
>simultaneous use of addresses with different reachability characteristics. 

IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com