Re: Multi6 WG Last Call (2 of 3) draft-ietf-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt

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



	Pekka,

On 2004-10-28, at 11.26, Pekka Savola wrote:

> 2.1  How will your solution solve the multihoming problem?
>
>     That's why we're here.  Remember, a reference is fine.
>
> ==> this seems almost like asking, in an email context, 'how does your 
> proposal solve the spam problem?'.  This question is not good, because 
> I don't think we have sufficiently clearly defined what "the 
> multihoming problem" really is (and some might even argue it's 
> multiple different problems), and its unlikely that the solutions can 
> even solve the whole problem.
>
> This will cause folks to answer, "the solution provides connection
> survivability, solving the multihoming problem" .. BUT THAT'S NOT
> THE (WHOLE OF) MULTIHOMING PROBLEM!
>
> It's difficult to say how this should be fixed.  One way might be 
> trying to
> precisely define what 'the multihoming problem' refers to.  One way 
> would be
> rewording the question so that the responder should try to describe 
> which
> multihoming problem(s) the responder thinks what the solution is 
> solving,
> and which not.  Reference to a list of multihoming problems would also 
> be
> OK, but I don't think there is a good document laying these out.

I agree with you to some extent, but I read the question being 
"describe the problems you are trying to solve". Which I think is 
closer to your point.

> ==> I already proposed the following new section in March:
>
> ===
> 2.X Can multihoming setup be delayed from session setup?
>
> If the proposal induces overhead (added bytes in packets, or
> additional packets), is it possible to delay that overhead (or
> "multihoming set-up") to happen after the session has been
> established?
>
> That is, is it possible to specify that multihoming benefits would
> only be achieved for sessions which last over XX seconds, to optimize
> away the cost of set-up for short-lived sessions?
> ===
>
> Whether that should be a section of its own, or a couple of questions 
> merged
> e.g., in 2.7 is your call.

I think that might actually be worth a question on it's own.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQYDa2KarNKXTPFCVEQJCNQCggi4P+XV7Ju/uuCVNRTdQxmy3EE8AnAnr
PvCmX+oHDRg2XrR0URFwVhhV
=DAzg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----