Re: Updated draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-01.txt

> Brian will act as WG chair for anything that relates to this draft, I 
> will act as editor.

Well, no chair hat is on for this message.

After reading Iljitsch's & Marcelo's comments, and some side conversations,
I think we would have a much easier time with this document if section 3
(motivations for mh) was simply removed. Otherwise, we will discuss
it for ever and never converge. I suggest limiting to the description
of solutions.

> 4.5  NAT or RFC2260 based multihoming
> 
>    This last method might very well be the most commonly used method in
>    terms of volume.  Simply because this is what most residential users
>    are normally referred to.  

That may be true, but it hides the fact that NAT is also very commonly
used by enterprise networks, including some *very* big ones. It's the really
easy way to avoid advertising a large number of specifics when the same
enterprise is connected to the Internet at a large number of points.

> 6.1  Scalability
> 
>    Current IPV4 multihoming practices contribute to the significant
>    growth currently observed in the state held in the global
>    inter-provider routing system; 

With an important exception - NAT based mh specifically doesn't do this
(and probably explains why there has been significant growth in mh without
a corresponding explosion in BGP4).

     Brian