Re: Evaluation of Multihoming Solutions
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email protected]> Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:24:53 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martin, have you also looked at Geoff Houston's architectural analysis draft? That covers most of these issues. Latest version is draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-03.txt. Best regards, - - kurtis - On 2005-01-27, at 12.58, Martin Dunmore wrote: > Hi, > > As part of the 6NET project (http://www.6net.org) we are producing a > document that is attempting to evaluate the different multihoming > proposals > that have surfaced in the last couple of years or so. > > The latest draft is publicly available on the 6NET website... > http://www.6net.org/publications/other/multihoming.pdf (pdf version) > http://www.6net.org/publications/other/multihoming.doc (ms word > version) > > The draft still has a few holes (see email below) but it would be > beneficial > to get any feedback from people on the multi6 list. > > Regards, > Martin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Dunmore, > Martin > Sent: 25 January 2005 22:42 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [6net wp4] D4.5.3 draft available > > > I've placed the latest draft of D4.5.3 Evaluation of Multihoming > Solutions > on the website in WP4/Contributions section. > > It still needs a bit of work and I'm hoping the chaps that are savvy > with > multihoming can give me some feedback and/or contribute some more text. > > In particular we need to ask... > > Is the structure ok? > Have I missed any important solutions? > Some proposals have expired as internet drafts... does that mean we > should > leave them out? > > The main section I could do with some help on is the conclusions > section > where I'm hoping to evaluate the various proposals based on the goals > in > rfc3852 and then suggest some sensible way forward for people wishing > to do > multihoing in IPv6. It's a little empty at the moment as I've not had > time > to analyse and cross reference everything. > > The few sections with missing text aren't much of a problem as I can > fill > them in myself. Although if anyone has text they can offer... please > feel > free ;-) > > Other than that it needs general spit and polish and filling in a few > blanks! Perhaps also some more diagrams. > > Regards, > Martin > ---------------------------------------- > Dr Martin Dunmore > Research Associate > Computing Department > InfoLab 21, South Drive > Lancaster University > Lancaster, LA1 4WA > UK > Tel: +44 (0)1524 510382 > Fax: +44 (0)1524 510492 > Mob: +44 (0)7866 676930 > ------------------------------------------ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQfpZSqarNKXTPFCVEQKpoQCgspm/m2QqFu5r5guKPC6Co5dtMQ0AoJXu nRsuFvDGBJHXp55qpsHkqikz =8VYJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----