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

Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

To: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:05:40 +0859 ()
Cc: Tony Li <Tony.Li@procket.com>, "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, Bob Hinden <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>, multi6@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F5045506@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>from Michel Py at "Mar 15, 2003 01:22:27 pm"

> > Tony Li wrote:
> > 3) Change the semantics of a v6 address.
> 
> Wow that's a little too extreme for my taste.

Reasonable complaint. :-)

So, let's admit freedom of those who insist on leagacy v6 to
use it forever and interoperate with the rest of the v6 world
but without the benefit of multihoming.

Production level v6 address assignment can begin as soon as
we agree on a multihomed solution.

Is it OK, Jim?

							Masataka Ohta

References:
- RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
  - From: "Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

Prev by Date: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Next by Date: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Previous by thread: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Next by thread: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread