Subject: Summary of Multi Homed proposals

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:47:19 +1000 (EST)

Would it be prudent at this point considering the imminence of the Interim IETF
meeting that a brief summary of all the proposals be put together?

I would suggest that we table the following..

1. The title of the proposal, and the author(s).

2. A brief summary of how the proposal works.  A *short* abstract should be
appropriate.

3. A reference to a formal document describing the proposal if one exists.  If
not, one should be prepared ASAP.

Once this is done, this order of the proposals should be randomized to reduce
any bias, and then published to the list to see if there are any inadvertent
omissions. 

For my part, there has been much discussion on such wide fronts that I have had
difficulty in keeping up. 

As some of us (myself included) are unable to attend, and the list is the only
opportunity to have any say, this exercise will be important as a means of at
least knowning what the meeting will be discussing and should adequately
prepare those at the meeting to make a fair and just decision on this very
important topic.  Those who will be attending the meeting would do well to
agree on the necessary criteria that need to be applied to a successful
solution beforehand since they will be representing the interests of the wider
IPv6 community. 

To this end, I suggest that a clear and concise statement of the multihoming
problem be tabled and the necessary criteria for a successful solution should
also be stated.

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            [email-masked]
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:50:21 -0500

This is a good idea. As someone else pointed out, there is nothing
wrong with having several multihoming methodologies defined,
but at least they should be summarized in one place.

  Brian