Re: Requirements [was Re: Transport level multihoming]

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Tony Li wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
>  | That's fair comment, but remember that we have legacy IPv6 stacks already.
>  | We certainly can't assume that host IPv6 stacks will all get upgraded
>  | rapidly to cover such changes - i.e. hosts must not lose connectivity if
>  | they are not upgraded for multihoming, even if they don't get full benefit
>  | from the multihoming.
> 
> Given the choice between remaining compatible with 'legacy' IPv6 stacks or
> providing a useful multihoming solution, which would you choose?

Both. That's what I'm trying to say: don't remove (monohomed) connectivity
from existing IPv6 hosts when you introduce the multihoming solution. I doubt
if that is a difficult requirement to meet, but given the number of IPv6
stack implementations and the likely timelines for initial deployment
we can't duck it imho.

  Brian