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

[Alex Zinin <azinin@nexsi.com>]

Sean,

 Agreed. Let's concentrate on the WG items, i.e., requirements.
 Discussions on specific approaches do seem premature, though
 related and interesting.

-- 
Alex Zinin

Thursday, January 03, 2002, 7:41:27 AM, Sean Doran wrote:

> | 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.