Subject: Re: W.G. Last Call on "IPv6 Multihoming with Route Aggregation"

From: Ben Black <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:43:41 -0700

Please direct your attention to the lengthy discussion of the
numerous flaws in this draft on the ipng list starting
on September 14, 1999.  I do not believe this draft provides
any benefit ro network operators.  The draft on multihoming by
itojun is a far superior work (as disscussed last September).

Ben

> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:20:01 -0700
> From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: W.G. Last Call on "IPv6 Multihoming with Route Aggregation"
> 
> This is a IPng working group last call for comments on advancing the 
> following document as Informational:
> 
> 	Title		: IPv6 Multihoming with Route Aggregation
> 	Author(s)	: J. Yu
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6multihome-with-aggr-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 7
> 	Date		: 24-Nov-99
> 
> Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor
> editorial comments to the author.  This last call period will end two
> week from today on July 7, 2000.
> 
> Bob Hinden / Steve Deering
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:30:18 -0400

Ben,

>itojun is a far superior work (as disscussed last September).

I disagree with you and J. Yu's draft does provide benefit to network
operators.  I also believe Itojun's does too.  All I will say which is
about as much context you gave me in your mail.  But thats my opinion.

/jim

---

From: Vijay Gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:40:46 -0400

> about as much context you gave me in your mail.  But thats my opinion.

Speaking as a potential customer and sometimes operator, I am still trying
to figure out what exactly does this draft buy me (a customer) in terms of
added resilience over just getting diversely homed to the primary ISP in
the first place.

/vijay

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:48:04 -0400

I have the thread and will parse it.
/jim

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:51:23 -0400

>added resilience over just getting diversely homed to the primary ISP in

Exactly.  J. Yu's draft works now by administration just like IPv4.  No
better, no worse.  Anything else is not even proposed std and no product
vendor code bases I am aware of or more directly router vendor v6 code
bases are implementing any IPng disucssion which did not result in any
consensus for IPv6 Working Group.

/jim

---

From: Vijay Gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:02:18 -0400

> consensus for IPv6 Working Group.

Jim,

this is probably because english is my second language, but the above
paragraph made no sense whatsoever to me.

/vijay

---

From: Ben Black <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:27:50 -0700

I provided no context beyond the reference to the previous thread
as I did not see any need to rehash that thread and waste
everyones time.  I have previously stated quite clearly the
numerous deficiencies in J. Yu's draft and encourage you to read
the original thread on the subject.  I will be happy to forward
the entire thread to you if you missed it.

Ben

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:03:58 -0400

Vijay,

>paragraph made no sense whatsoever to me.

Well the best I can do.  Then I suggest you take Bob Hinden's mail to
heart.  We will have multiple solutions for now.

regards,
/jim