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

Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56


That is sad.

I would be really interested in this, as multihoming with PA is what I suggested in draft-kurtis-mulithoming-longprefix-00.txt. I still think that doing it the IPv4 way is the best and fastest hack we have for multihoming IPv6.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

On måndag, mar 17, 2003, at 02:02 Europe/Stockholm, Bound, Jim wrote:

I agree. I am trying to get people to come here doing it now. Seems to
be some kind of issue I don't get though. Probably afraid to get
unproffessional mail responses is one comment I heard from the IETF
lists??? That's too bad.

/jim




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael H. Lambert [mailto:lambert@psc.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:06 AM
To: Bound, Jim
Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56


--On Saturday, 15 March 2003 21:54 -0500 "Bound, Jim"
<Jim.Bound@hp.com>
wrote:


IPv6 deployment will not wait for multi-homing to be solved. [...]

I don't think multi-homing will wait for multi-homing to be
solved, either.
I'm sure there are many sites out there, not "knowing" there
are problems
with MH, that will blindly multi-home using PA addresses.
And I bet many
of them will be quite happy.  What we need are reports of operational
experience with PA MH.

Michael

+-------------------------------------------------------------
----------+
| Michael H. Lambert, Network Engineer           Phone: +1
412 268-4960 |
| Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center               FAX:   +1
412 268-8200 |
| 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA  15213
lambert@psc.edu        |
+-------------------------------------------------------------
----------+