Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Greg,

>If others think that no-mod full host 2460 fail-over support is required,
>what do you think of regarding it as legacy and allowing proposals to
>solve it with ugly things like NAT-on-link-failure <shivers>.
>
>I think it would be wise to trade a bit of end-to-end transparency in the
>short term (NAT for link failure on plain 2460 hosts) for additional
>end-to-end transparency in the future. 

Given the requirements under discussion, I think that a NAT-type solution
for RFC 2460 hosts would meet the requirements as part of a complete
multi-homing solution that met the other requirements.

However, I think that it would be possible to imagine a more desirable
solution.  For example, IPv6 hosts currently get their global address 
prefixes (with available lifetimes, etc.) from routers.  So, it would be 
possible for those routers to deprecate address prefixes on the
logical network that loses connectivity, if/when the routers detect that 
a link is down.

Margaret