[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Multi-homing (was RE: Moving backward [Re: Fourth alternative [was Re: Moving forward ....]])




(The reason for the late reply and all the late emails is that my 
laptop had a disk crash during my vacation, but I had a backup with 
mails I had replied to but not sent...)

	Tony,


On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 09:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote:

> This whole discussion is about multihoming, which points out the 
> failure of
> the approach to move the multihoming discussion into a separate WG. 
> Multi6
> should be closed NOW, and that work should be folded back into the 
> IPv6 WG
> so there can be a comprehensive approach to the issues (this is 
> independent
> of the fact that the thread in an Ops WG is really about 
> rearchitecting the
> Internet).

I disagree with this. The multihoming problem is not a ipv6 problem 
alone.

> As we stand now, all discussions about multihoming are assumed to
> be taking place over there, so we don't recognize the address selection
> discussion as being the same thing.

This is not entirely true. I remember the chairs in Vienna actually 
asking what we should do with this issue and where it belongs. This was 
also brought up in the multi6 meeting. So the issue is recognized as 
being similar, if not the same.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------