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

Re: comments about the draft charter

Hi John,

i may agree that different solutions may be required for different scenarios.
Would be good enough to rephrase it as the following?

- Solutions to establish new communications after an outage has
occurred that does not requires shim support from the non-multihomed
end of the communication. The wg will explore if such solutions are also
useful when both ends support the shim.

I guess that the same rewording is needed in the previous item which states that:

o A solution for site exit router selection that works when each ISP
uses ingress filtering, i.e. when the chosen site exit needs to be
related to the source address chosen by the host. This solution
should work whether or not the peer site supports the shim6 protocol.

(i guess that in the case of ingress filtering more than one solutions are likely)

Regards, marcelo

El 12/01/2005, a las 8:02, <john.loughney@nokia.com> escribió:

Marcelo,

i would add an additional item here:

- A solution to establish new communications after an outage has
occurred that does not requires shim support from the non-multihomed
end of the communication. The wg will explore if such solution is also
useful when both ends support the shim.

imho this is relevant becuase it would provide an incremental
deployment model to the solution. If this is not provided, it is all or
nothing approach w.r.t. to fault tolerance i.e. if the other end
support the shim, then you get all the benefits but if the other end
does not supports the shim then no additional fault tolerance is
achieved.

Do you think that there is 'a' solution? I have a feeling that there
are multiple solutions, at least for different scenarios. I feel somewhat
uncomfortable about adding an item for working on a solution; if people
feel strongly about this, then maybe it would be reasonable to create an
information / BCP about mechansims to provide recovery after an outage.

John