Subject: RE: Resolving geo discussions

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 01:10:07 -0700

Nay.  And the ad hominem remarks are out of place here.

Tony

|    -----Original Message-----
|    From: Sean Doran [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|    Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:30 PM
|    To: Michel Py
|    Cc: Sean Doran; [email-masked]
|    Subject: Re: Resolving geo discussions
|    
|    
|    
|    On Wednesday, Apr 16, 2003, at 03:53 Europe/London, Michel 
|    Py wrote:
|    
|    > A site would renumber twice a year?
|    >
|    > Sean, go back to sleep. You are a disgrace to this ML.
|    
|    Why?  Because I meet in the market place enterprises
|    which deploy NATs explicitly to facilitate exactly this?
|    
|    Prices are falling.  People want short-term contracts with 
|    few strings.
|    
|    I apologize for uttering this horrifically disgraceful statement,
|    and will comply with your wish, if there is rough consensus from
|    the rest of the WG.
|    
|    	Sean.
|    
|    
|

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:49:30 +0200

I agree. Actually I am hoping to see more from the co-chairs,
not less.

Now seriously about renumbering, it is something that IPv6 facilitates,
but we still haven't taken the sting out of it, and that is
a challenge yet to be solved. Not in this WG though.

   Brian

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:32:16 +0100

> I agree. Actually I am hoping to see more from the co-chairs,

Absolutely, and it's just 3 months to Vienna and the restoration of the
multi6 sessions at the meetings.  We should have some idea soon of
what will be on the table there and Sean and Kurtis' input here to
shape that is very important.

Tim

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:00:55 -0700

> what will be on the table there

what are you putting on it?

randy

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:23:02 +0200

> shape that is very important.

Me and Sean are privately discussing what we thing will be the best way 
to organize the meeting in Vienna - stay tuned.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:23:02 +0200

- kurtis -

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:28:35 +0100

> what are you putting on it?

I predict a bottle of water, glasses and a microphone or two.

First we need to decide what to do about the current (only) multi6 I-D.  It 
needs to be either signed off or removed and replaced with a less restrictive 
(perhaps more open minded) set of requirements.   

I like Christian's proposal.  It offers what appears to be a sane path
to at least solve some useful classes of scenario.   And we have this as
a good proposal in spite of no agreed requirements document, so I think
we can also put forward other potential solutions too.

I think if we can set an agenda now, and decide what is on that table, we 
can maybe have some fruitful, focused discussion before Vienna.   Is MHAP 
on the table?  GSE?  HIP?  ....?    Some solutions may not fly, but we
should at least ensure they get a good airing in an official IETF session
rather than just in the ipv6mh meetings, as (very) good as they are.

At least let's make sure there is a meeting in Vienna.  It seems a lot
of people just assumed there would be a San Francisco multi6, given it
seen as the last Big Issue for IPv6 by a fair few people.   Let's even
consider getting some possible solutions on board as WG items in July.

Tim

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:05:16 -0700

> seen as the last Big Issue for IPv6 by a fair few people.

no solid content, no agenda.  no agenda, no meeting.

randy

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:28:51 +0200

> (perhaps more open minded) set of requirements.

It will be last-called. If I am not mistaken my initial two weeks ends 
next week and we will then do last-call. The new drafts have some 
comments included.

> consider getting some possible solutions on board as WG items in July.

There will be a meeting. Me and Sean are working out the agenda and how 
we should get one together.

As for what should be included, well we (IMHO) need to change the 
charter, or at least look at doing so and update the milestones. There 
are a number or proposals floating around, of which not all even have 
made it as IDs. Having presentations of all in Vienna, at a depth that 
gives justice to all proposals,  might be a bit time consuming, but 
perhaps we need to.

- kurtis -

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:58:22 +0200 (CEST)

> gives justice to all proposals,  might be a bit time consuming, but 

Instead of reviewing proposals in depth it might make more sense
to task somebody with doing a compare and contrast between the different
proposals and use such a presentation as the focus for discussion.

That approach tends to lead to more focus on the problem and the possible
approaches with less of "my proposal is better than yours" type of discussion.

  Erik

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:33:59 +0300 (EEST)

> approaches with less of "my proposal is better than yours" type of discussion.

Totally agree here.

We shouldn't discuss proposals, but rather talk in some "meta" 
multihoming level.

We need to have better picture what we want and can do before getting down 
to business and digging holes...

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