Re: IPv6 news

[Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>]

On 15-Oct-2005, at 15:29, Tony Li wrote:

> > So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome.  Of those 4, shim6  
> > ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so  
> > far as I can see glosses over load sharing.
>
> If you have a solution that satisfies all requirements, you should  
> contribute it.  Shim6 is indeed a partial solution to the stated  
> requirements.  There was no tractable solution found to all  
> requirements, and to not solve any of the issues was seen as  
> basically fatal.

Yes.

It may be worth noting that the "requirements" you're talking about  
were very deliberately published in a document which professes to  
contain "goals" and was intended to avoid any mention of the "r" word  
(although I see we missed one in the title of section 3.2 :-)

The draft that led to RFC 3582 was originally a requirements  
document. As you say, there was no confidence that there would be any  
proposals which would meet all the items in the document if they had  
been wrapped in MUSTs and SHOULDs. As the abstract says:

   This document outlines a set of goals for proposed new IPv6 site-
   multihoming architectures.  It is recognised that this set of goals
   is ambitious and that some goals may conflict with others.  The
   solution or solutions adopted may only be able to satisfy some of  
the
   goals presented here.


Joe