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

Re: Draft Minutes of IPv6 WG meeting



nordmark - peers don't have to be multihomed, but have to implement
protocol to produce multihoming benefits. has been suggested that for
transition reasons a proxy might be a nice way to go, but that proxy
turns out to have nat-like characteristics.

bagnulo - need to upgrade both hosts to preserve established
communications through outages, but there are other problems that are
solved without needing to upgrade peers.

Once I Marcelo reminded me I retracted part of my statement. I don't know if you want to capture that my adding my clarification, or by editing the item above to be what I meant.

If the former it would make sense to add:
nordmark - You're right. One can get multihoming benefits while the communication is established without requiring the peer to implement the protocol. But if you want the multihoming benefit for established connections, both ends need to implement the protocol.

   Erik


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------