Re: grow: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-grow-rfc1519bis-02.txt

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

On 16 Jun 2005, at 11:31, Pekka Savola wrote:

>>> It would be useful to consider to which degree the language of what 
>>> must be
>>> done in multihoming scenarios is needed in this doc, but if it is 
>>> needed,
>>> the tone should possibly be watered down a bit to also address the
>>> cornercases like above.
>>
>> Again, this is current practice for routing-based multihoming in 
>> IPv4. It
>> is also, IMHO, a core requirement of this document to describe how 
>> CIDR
>> works in the presence of such multi-homing and the related issues of
>> topological rehoming and renumbering.
>
> It is _a_ current practice; maybe the most dominant one, but others 
> provably exist as well.  My maint point is to ensure that this 
> document does not attempt to specify which is the "right" multihoming 
> method.

[...]

>> Any modification would be to add a timeframe qualification. It might 
>> also be
>> appropriate to add pointers to other documents that describe other 
>> multi-
>> homing strategies. Can you offer appropriate references?

It may be worth reviewing draft-multi6-v4-multihoming-03, which is has 
been approved for publication and is just waiting for the RFC editor.


Joe

_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive:        http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/