[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6

[Michel Py]

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Nevertheless, your WG still
>> hasn't produced anything yet and it's been 10 years.

> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> It's been 10 years for IPv6, and 4 years (or 3.5 of
> whatever) for multi6.

Kurtis,

[I hope you do not take this personally as this is absolutely not the
intent]

You know as well as I do that the multi6 work has started _way_ before
the multi6 WG (in the then-named IPNG WG) and the politics behind it.

The multi6 work _has indeed_ started some 10 years ago, as proof there
are IETF IPv6 documents dating back to 1996 such as:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shand-ipv6-multi-homing-01.txt
There also is some non-IETF work from even earlier (see below)

As of actual proposals, Mike O'Dell's GSE is 1997 (for the record, it
has been said that MHAP was a son of GSE, it's not)
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/draft-ipng-gseaddr-00.txt
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-durand-gse+-00.txt

Other stuff such as:
http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/presentations/Sep99/PDF/deering-
multihome.PDF can be found here:
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh


Somehow related note to Geoff Huston: as I dug into the historical dept.
below are some docs possibly relevant to what you are looking for (if
you don't have them already):
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/francis94comparison.pdf
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/map-n-encap.pdf
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/metro-addr-slides-jul95.pdf


> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> We have a problem. We have recognised, now let's deal with it.

Kurtis, we heard this song for the last 10 years as demonstrated above
and below.


> We do have a single proposal since D.C. It's not
> a protocol yet, as that is left to another area.
> It's not a WG document yet, as we are waiting for
> people to submit the changes.

Translation: another 4 years at best before initial publication, another
x years at best before initial tests.

What? 4 years? YES, FOUR #%^$@ YEARS. Want proof? It's in the pudding,
look below!
> IPv4 Multihoming Motivation, Practices and Limitations
> draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02

This has been on the since the original charter for ~4 years, still not
published. I know it was already 2 years overdue when you inherited it
but nevertheless it's a WG doc for the WG you co-chair. So please don't
tell me my time lines are unrealistic.

Kurtis, the following are facts: You don't even have a -00 as of today,
a -00 has never been a solution anyway. Multi6 and previous works have
not produced anything in the last 10 years, and will not produce
anything before the next x+ years. _FACTS_.

Asking for some extra years _more_ is not an option available to you
anymore. Not after 10 years. IF you ever produce something, then we'll
be eager to look at it when you ACTUALLY have it.

Michel.