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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-07-22, at 11.30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> 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.

I agree with this (obviously). If someone _disagrees_, please let me 
know. I guess we will ask this question in San Diego as well.

>> 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.

Ok, I guess I should add that.

>> 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).


Ok, and for consistency I should add a comment on this.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQQEhyaarNKXTPFCVEQI2uwCfUcF7w+GK0Ix+pwEF3lXO5HPEGxoAoLVT
8llMXLuyjMFYAJV4G0bje0sW
=i/na
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----