RE: additional requirement: cooperation

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

I will think of Multi6 as a failure if there is no solution developed
because the requirements are too specific. Let's stop dreaming and keep
in mind that the requirements' goals are to be guidelines to actual
solutions, not to wishes.

As mentioned in 3.1.5, "the current multihoming solution is quite
straightforward to deploy and maintain" which includes the necessary
peering and provider cooperation. There would be an inconsistency if the
requirements draft was to say that it is too bad to prohibit the use of
a similar solution in IPv6.

Michel.