Subject: Mutli6 meeting in Vienna

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 09:51:10 -0400

Chairs,

I am rethinking my R&R time off in July and might change my mind and
come to Vienna.
Part of my decision is are we going to meet officially as Multi6 and if
we do can we schedule one 2 hour offsite but not on Sunday as coming
from U.S. I don't want to get there on Saturday (well I can't).  Us
meeting would input to my decision and two other areas of the IETF I am
not comfortable not being at for some issues that require important
face-to-face discussion.

Any idea yet?  

Thanks
/jim

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 07:03:44 +0200

> not comfortable not being at for some issues that require important

We are in the clear that we should meet. What we need to work on is the 
agenda. Me and Sean have been sending some sporadic emails between 
eachother on this, but I guess we need to more a bit more here. As to 
an off-site face-to-face meeting, I would say that this is partly up to 
what the agenda would include.

I am still also open to input on the agenda and the structure of the 
meeting. From the past weeks discussions here I would assume that "GSE" 
will be a large topic, but we would need something to discuss around. 
We also have Pekkas draft and we have the option to have someone go 
through the options brought to the IETF so far (I was going through the 
ID archives but I could't find much more than my drafts, Iljitsch, 
Tonys and Michels expired drafts. Then we also have HIP. Have I missed 
something?). Opinions?

I guess that if we want to have a private session, that would be on the 
topic of identifier/locator separation ?

- kurtis -

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:06:45 +0300 (EEST)

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> Tonys and Michels expired drafts.

I could also do the summary if necessary, as I've already made one myself,
but that could be a bit biased..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Cedric de Launois <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 May 2003 08:56:39 +0200

Le ven 09/05/2003 à 07:03, Kurt Erik Lindqvist a écrit :
> ... (I was going through the 

I am currently working on a new draft, "Host-Centric IPv6 Multihoming
with Traffic Engineering". It will be soon ready. It is quite far from
what is discussed here at the moment but I think we should not forget
host-centric solutions and traffic engineering needs.

Cedric

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 10:45:29 +0200

I think what would be excellent would be for someone to open the meeting
with an overview of the classes of solutions. We may need to launch parallel
efforts, so agreeing which classes of solution we want to develop is
an important first step.

  Brian

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:42:29 +0200

On vrijdag, mei 9, 2003, at 10:45 Europe/Amsterdam, Brian E Carpenter 

> efforts, so agreeing which classes of solution we want to develop is

It seems we're still not at the stage where there is agreement on 
whether any given type of solution is viable or not. Waiting for Vienna 
and then discuss all the details in a meeting is not the most efficient 
use of time. I suggest that everyone submits solution classes to be 
presented and we then identify the central issue with that class 
beforehand so we don't have to be sidetracked by either minor details 
or fairly obvious fatal flaws in the meeting. This should allows us to 
focus on what's important.

Iljitsch

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 10:34:43 +0200

Well, I need to see a single taxonomy, not a bunch of
independently drafted half proposals. But I agree that
we need to focus on fatal flaws and major advantages, not
on details.

   Brian

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:58:05 +0200

On fredag, maj 9, 2003, at 08:56 Europe/Stockholm, Cedric de Launois 

> host-centric solutions and traffic engineering needs.

The problem is that I am not sure we will have the time to let everyone 
present their solutions. This is to some extend a "catch-up" meeting 
and we might have more detailed presentations in the future. But let's 
see what we get on the agenda.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 10:00:55 +0200

Agreed. We will try and arrange an overview presentation.

- kurtis -

On fredag, maj 9, 2003, at 10:45 Europe/Stockholm, Brian E Carpenter

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 10:16:00 +0200

On fredag, maj 9, 2003, at 15:42 Europe/Stockholm, Iljitsch van Beijnum 
wrote:

> whether any given type of solution is viable or not. Waiting for 
> Vienna and then discuss all the details in a meeting is not the most 
> efficient use of time.

My goal was not that we would have a "vote" on the solutions. It was 
merely to give an overview of what proposals have been made and where 
we are.

>  I suggest that everyone submits solution classes to be presented and 
> we then identify the central issue with that class beforehand so we 
> don't have to be sidetracked by either minor details or fairly obvious 
> fatal flaws in the meeting. This should allows us to focus on what's 
> important.
>

 From what I can tell, there are two main-line solution classes that 
have some wider support. A loc/id separated solution, which seems to 
have the widest support and what most of the discussions seems to 
circling around. The second solution class seems to be a "host based" 
solution.
In addition there is HIP, which seems to pop up as an example in both 
of these solution classes.

Am I correct in my assumptions above?

- kurtis -

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:24:48 +0300 (EEST)

> Am I correct in my assumptions above?

I think HIP is a loc/id separation solution.  But perhaps you meant 
something like "loc/id separation in the network solution" by your 
terminology?

In my book, HIP is just a way to do certain things in a host-based
solution, e.g. fix connection survivability, possibly make the ingress
filtering easier/eliminate it etc.

HIP is also fit for some other solution spaces for e.g. connection
survivability, but it won't be able to solve the whole multihoming problem
for certain classes of networks, especially those who require load
sharing.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 10:57:05 +0200

> something like "loc/id separation in the network solution" by your

Well, I actually meant that parts of the HIP solution was being 
discussed as possible pieces for both hosts based and loc/id based 
solutions.

- kurtis -