Goals for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures
draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2003-08-22
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2003-07-03
|
07 | Natalia Syracuse | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Syracuse, Natalia |
2003-07-01
|
07 | Michael Lee | State Changes to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent by Lee, Michael |
2003-07-01
|
07 | (System) | IESG has approved the document |
2003-06-27
|
07 | Dinara Suleymanova | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Suleymanova, Dinara |
2003-06-23
|
07 | Randy Bush | Status date has been changed to 2003-06-26 from |
2003-06-16
|
07 | Randy Bush | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed by Bush, Randy |
2003-06-16
|
07 | Randy Bush | revised I-D received which met the issue with This document outlines a set of goals for proposed new IPv6 site-multihoming architectures. It is … revised I-D received which met the issue with This document outlines a set of goals for proposed new IPv6 site-multihoming architectures. It is recognised that this set of goals is ambitious and that some goals may conflict with others. The solution or solutions adopted may only be able to satisfy some of the goals presented here. |
2003-06-13
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-07.txt |
2003-06-11
|
07 | Randy Bush | An Ops-Dir reviewer had the following comments: Let's see: load balancing is not a realistic requirement. For the architecture to be automatic, we have to … An Ops-Dir reviewer had the following comments: Let's see: load balancing is not a realistic requirement. For the architecture to be automatic, we have to be dynamic and we've proven that we don't know how to do that yet. Even to give people some tools seems to lead to abuse. Who controls the balancing? The source? The destination? Don't say 'both'. No packet can serve two masters. Performance. Exact same arguments since the only way to affect performance is to load balance. Policy: so ill stated as to be meaningless. If this is a call for policy routing, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with multihoming. Simplicity: motherhood, apple pie and chevrolet. Transport survivability: Well, ok, but this is just a refinement of the redundancy requirement. How about we remove the redundant redundancy requirement? Compatible with DNS: meaningless Packet filtering: meaningless Scalability: see simplicity routers: create a new architecture, but don't change the routers, change the hosts hosts: create a new architecture, but don't change the hosts, change the routers Interaction between hosts & routers: tighter coupling between subsystems has never been an architectural good idea. So let's do that and change both. O&M: see pie, apple. multiple solutions: please don't give us one size fits all, that's not confusing enough security: don't break security Net: The real requirements are: - Provide multihoming - Provide scalable routing - Transport survivability |
2003-06-11
|
07 | Randy Bush | State Changes to IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested :: External Party by Bush, Randy |
2003-05-28
|
07 | Randy Bush | review requested of v6ops and grow wgs |
2003-05-28
|
07 | Randy Bush | State Changes to Publication Requested :: External Party from Publication Requested by Bush, Randy |
2003-05-25
|
07 | Randy Bush | wg last call complete, publication requested Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 17:12:50 +0200 Subject: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt Cc: Bert (Bert) Wijnen , Randy Bush , Sean … wg last call complete, publication requested Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 17:12:50 +0200 Subject: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt Cc: Bert (Bert) Wijnen , Randy Bush , Sean Doran , Joe Abley To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist The multi6 WG have through a last-call verified consensus on the document draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt and want to request this to be published as an informational RFC. Best regards, - kurtis - / multi6 co-chair |
2003-05-25
|
07 | Randy Bush | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Bush, Randy |
2003-05-16
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt |
2003-04-17
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-05.txt |
2003-04-04
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-04.txt |
2003-03-19
|
07 | Randy Bush | wg still 'discussing' the draft |
2003-03-19
|
07 | Randy Bush | wg still arguing about it |
2003-03-19
|
07 | Randy Bush | Draft Added by Bush, Randy |
2002-06-11
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03.txt |
2001-11-27
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-02.txt |
2001-06-26
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-01.txt |
2001-03-22
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-00.txt |