-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis@kurtis.pp.se]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:14 PM
To: Bound, Jim
Cc: Michael H. Lambert; multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: 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 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------
----------+