On 15-Oct-2005, at 15:29, Tony Li wrote:
So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome. Of those 4, shim6
ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so
far as I can see glosses over load sharing.
If you have a solution that satisfies all requirements, you should
contribute it. Shim6 is indeed a partial solution to the stated
requirements. There was no tractable solution found to all
requirements, and to not solve any of the issues was seen as
basically fatal.
Yes.
It may be worth noting that the "requirements" you're talking about
were very deliberately published in a document which professes to
contain "goals" and was intended to avoid any mention of the "r" word
(although I see we missed one in the title of section 3.2 :-)
The draft that led to RFC 3582 was originally a requirements
document. As you say, there was no confidence that there would be any
proposals which would meet all the items in the document if they had
been wrapped in MUSTs and SHOULDs. As the abstract says:
This document outlines a set of goals for proposed new IPv6 site-
multihoming architectures. It is recognised that this set of goals
is ambitious and that some goals may conflict with others. The
solution or solutions adopted may only be able to satisfy some of
the
goals presented here.
Joe