RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

Jim,

|    >3) Change the semantics of a v6 address.
|    
|    So you are not suggesting a syntax change only semantics 
|    to the 128bits?


Correct.  If it matters, yes, I don't believe that the current
IPv6 approach is the ultimately correct way of approaching things,
but I'm not trying to cause a revolution here.  Just prevent v6
from being a total waste of time.  We can work with the 128 bits
for now.


|    But I don't believe location and identification should be 
|    different. The
|    address should be overloaded to support both context.I 
|    believe that is
|    possible.  The address is both a location and an 
|    identifier. The IPv6
|    address supports location top down from the left most bits 
|    for routing.
|    So I believe what you ask exists now.


I'm asking that we separate the identifier and the location.  Can't
do that if they're one and the same.  I agree that the current
semantics are one and the same today.  This is exactly what makes
multihoming hard.  
    

|    Do you agree with the way we have stated the multi6 problem? 


Not particularly.  But I can state it very succinctly: a host 
needs one identifier and multiple locators.

Tony