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

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

>>> Michel Py wrote:
>>> This would be better answered by the chairs, but I
>>> personally think that multihoming for mobile IPv6 is
>>> out of scope here.
>> David Conrad wrote:
>> While I tend to agree that it is out of scope for the working group,
>> I personally see multi-homing, mobility, and renumbering as facets of
>> the same problem, namely the use of the end point identifier as the
>> routing locator.

I agree with this.


>> A solution that addresses (pun intended) the multi-homing
>> requirement may also address the mobility/renumbering problem.
> Alex Zinin wrote:
> Agree completely.

At this time, I disagree with that. It is indeed a good idea, what I called a slam dunk before, "THE" multihoming solution that solves all three of the aspects of multihoming which are big honkin' setup, home/soho and mobile. The reason I disagree  is that nobody has provided a clue in how to make it work so far. As several other people mentionned before, we have a collective responsibility in delivering something that will get IPv6 multihoming started, especially the part that is multihomed in IPv4 already. Pursuing that elusive universal solution is definitely interesting, but unless we see a draft that appears it can fly is IMHO out of scope here.

Michel.