RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]

[Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

> |  > - Is the multi-homing solution IPv6 only or can it also be
> |  used with
> |  > IPv4?
> |  > I know this is multi6, but it is probably interesting to
> |  know if the
> |  > solution can be applied to IPv4
> |
> |  To be honest, I think this is not important right now. Let's
> |  solve the
> |  task at hand first. If we after that figures out that it
> |  works for IPv4
> |  as well, all the better.
>
>
> I'd submit that if it cannot be easily ported back to IPv4, that it
> bears
> closer examination.  v4 and v6 are architecturally very similar.  Any
> solution that does not apply to both is either a kludge or is exploiting
> an odd property of one of the two.  In either case, it would bear close
> examination.  You know, the kind that you give things when the fire
> alarm
> in the building goes off... ?  ;-)

Yes, but what I am saying (and so is Brian in the latest mail) is that is
not a target for this WG.

> |  > - About incremental deployment, i think that there are
> |  different ideas
> |  > about
> |  > what incremental deployment means.
> |
> |  Maybe what we would need is to have each proposal include a
> |  description
> |  of how the proposal is implemented in a site/network?
>
>
> Deployability is always a good thing for running code...  ;-)
> Yes, I think any proposal needs to describe a plausible deployment
> scenario.

Yes.

- kurtis -