draft-nordmark-multi6-sim-00.txt

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Erik,

Regarding your draft draft-nordmark-multi6-sim-00.txt, I'm interested to know if you are considered the implications of using the
next header field ?. Let me explain.

When we met several times in the Atlanta IETF for the "multi6 rebel's WG", one of the solutions that we have been discussing was the
one from Marcelo.

The main inconvenient was the lack of support from the vendors to any option that means using next headers to support multi6
solutions.

In fact I believe you were on a couple of the 7-8 meetings that we had, right ?

This question is not only for you, but also for the router manufacturers that have already implemented IPv6 support in hardware
(most of them actually !). I'm sure they are on this mailing list ...

I understand that this can be implemented in software, as most probably, most of the multihoming applications will not be
"performance critical" to create a constrain with the current generations of IPv6 hardware implementations. In fact this is a
general problem for the usage of next header in the case of routers ... but this is probably a discussion to be done in the IPv6 WG.

This question is somehow valid also for the draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-00.txt.

Regards,
Jordi

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.