[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:55:13 -0700
Cc: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, multi6@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B04640BD21B@server2000>
References: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B04640BD21B@server2000> <3DB6A0D9.44A5209@hursley.ibm.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Sure. And in answer to Eliot, its usefulness is to provide
a frame in which to think about proposed solutions.

Given the document will have no force, I suppose I don't care all too much. My point, however, is that the frame appears currently more like an overly constraining box.

Eliot

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihomingdevelopment
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>

References:
- RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
  - From: "Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
- Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>

Prev by Date: RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
Next by Date: RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
Previous by thread: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
Next by thread: Re: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihomingdevelopment
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread