IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Multihoming Issues

"Michel Py" <michel@ARNEILL-PY.SACRAMENTO.CA.US> Mon, 23 September 2002 22:32 UTC

Received: from loki.ietf.org (loki [10.27.2.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28026 for <ietf-web-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:32:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from adm@localhost) by loki.ietf.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA25146 for ietf-outbound.10@loki.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [10.27.2.28]) by loki.ietf.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA25104 for <ietf-mainout@loki.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:29:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id SAA27851 for ietf-mainout@loki.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:27:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to owner-ietf@ietf.org using -f
Received: from server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (adsl-209-233-126-65.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net [209.233.126.65]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27846; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:27:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Multihoming Issues
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:28:47 -0700
Message-ID: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E31A@server2000>
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Thread-Topic: Multihoming Issues
Thread-Index: AcJjS6MwlI8oklbVTeuLzQwKGh5i7AAA8bMw
From: Michel Py <michel@ARNEILL-PY.SACRAMENTO.CA.US>
To: alh-ietf@tndh.net, Simon Leinen <simon@limmat.switch.ch>, David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Cc: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Sister Sibling <ccs522g9@yahoo.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, iesg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id SAB27848
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>> Simon Leinen wrote:
>> What is needed is some sort of feedback loop that
>> weighs the interest of multi-homing entities against
>> its impact on remote parts of the infrastructure.

> Tony Hain wrote:
> That is the basis of the multi-6 wg requirements
> document. Unfortunately there are so many competing
> interests that it is impossible to meet them all
> with a simple solution. The end sites want
> capabilities that strain the resources of the
> service providers, and the service providers want
> approaches that are non-starters for the end sites. 

Agree with Tony. There is always something in any solution that would
not meet the multi6 requirements.

Michel.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email