Re: Missing DNS reqt? [was Re: (multi6) requirements draft comments]

[smd@ebone.net (Sean Doran)]

| This sounds exactly like a description of mobility, and exactly like
| a description of multihoming. I don't think we should be scared of
| common solutions (which is not the same as saying MIPv6 is the
| solution for multihoming).

Remember that this WG is charterd to solve SITE multihoming,
rather than host multihoming.   If the former, which implies
simultaneous connectivity and/or migration for a collection of
hosts from a few to a vast number, can be done using the mechanisms
of the latter (e.g. multi-addressed hosts, MIP6), that's fine and
dandy.  However, first, the charter documents need to be pushed
along the standards track, as discussed in SLC.

	Sean.