On 19 Oct 2012, at 18:01, Damien Saucez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Regarding all the discussion around this document I think a f2f discussion > could help. > > Would you please give us a time slot to discuss this during next meeting? Obviously meeting slots are up to the chairs to allocate, but my understanding is that homenet is not attempting to introduce any new multihoming solutions. But if there's 'cheap wins' those can be taken. Therefore what seems to be on the table for homenet are: a) approaches like shim6 which rely on host support. The homenet arch should not preclude those. They are, on paper, here today. b) embracing multiple prefixes and solving that challenge with existing tools - see draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-04. This could be the 'cheap win'. c) adding better tools in a new homenet routing protocol, i.e. supporting source *and* destination address based routing. This is most likely some time off. d) NPT66 (RFC6296), which the homenet arch does not recommend, but see draft-bonica-v6-multihome-03. I would suggest you look at draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-04 and see how your approach compares. Your draft doesn't cite it (and doesn't seem to have any references yet, but I note that may simply be because it's an early version). Tim > > Thank you, > > Damien Saucez > > On 11 Oct 2012, at 11:37, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1 Oct 2012, at 22:14, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> As far as I can tell, multihoming is not mentioned in the homenet charter, >>> but it is discussed in draft-ietf-homenet-arch, without a clear conclusion. >>> There is an argument for a specific analysis document on this topic, before >>> we discuss our favourite solutions. >> >> A homenet arch -05 is about to be published. >> >> As Brian says, there is a brief section in the arch text about multihoming, >> which we believe captures all that needs to be said. The section tries to >> describe the architectural implications of different approaches in the >> context of the architecture goals. For example, nothing in the architecture >> should preclude use of shim6, if the hosts support it. >> >> If people have specific comments on 3.2.4 where this is contained, please >> make them and we can consider those. >> >> Tim >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
