On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:40:23PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote: > Brian has suggested that much of this discussion belongs on the ram > list. See > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram > > and please join it if you feel it is appropriate for you to do so. Thanks Fred. > Where IPv6 Operations has a useful role here, I think, is to bring > out internet drafts and perhaps RFCs that inform that discussion. > That may include reposting existing internet drafts, and may include > new ones. The key thing, though, is that the question is not "what > are the multihoming requirements for the entire Internet", but "what > are the end-to-end addressing and routing requirements for" what I > will call (for lack of better terminology, not become I like it all > that well) "Transit ISPs, Access ISPs, large edge networks, mid-sized > edge networks, and SOHO and residential networks?" Multihoming is > part of that, but inter-ISP traffic engineering is also part, and > there may be other parts. If two groups of people find that they have > differing requirement sets, the solution is not to force them to come > to some unrecognizable consensus, but to have them describe the part > of the Internet they are describing requirements for and then > accurately cull out those requirements. The classic example of such a > divide that I mentioned in another note is the idea that some ISPs > want PA addressing as a market lock, and some edge networks detest PA > addressing because it is one. One useful note along those lines might > be a well researched set of expectations of the Internet, including > each of its various ecological zones, in ten, twenty, and fifty years. > > Consider a call for submissions to have been placed. In addition, there is a workshop report that is in the works (we have a -00.txt candidate in hand), so I'm hoping that will be available for your questions and comment in the next few days. Thnx, and look forward to the discussion. --dmm
Attachment:
pgp9fq0ZkntKW.pgp
Description: PGP signature