Re: Re: Draft of updated WG charter

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

Noel,


]>  Now, all you need to do is understand why multiple addresses are an
>  inevitable consequence of the fact that we can't realistically call for the
>  deployment of an entire new routing architecture as part of the Multi6
>  solution.

yup.


>  Failing that, the only workable approach *within the current routing
>  architecture* is overlapping naming abstractions, which are (looked at from
>  the direction of the hosts, as opposed to from the routing) multiple
>  addresses.

Among the HIP, LIN6, MAST, NOID, TCP-MH, SCTP, DCCP, etc. schemes, which do you 
count as having overlapping naming abstractions and which do you not?

d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://brandenburg.com>