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.
Tony
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
