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

Re: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01

To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, Multi6 <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: "Your message with ID" <771D86ED-BB18-11D8-BDA1-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Reply-to: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>

> We can't let ourselves be constrained by arbitrary features of the 
> current architecture. If the features are important, sure, we must 
> support them. But having to do so just because it can be done today 
> makes has the potential to disqualify very useful multihoming solutions 
> without good reason.

Is there something in section 8 that you think is placing too strong
requirements?

  Erik

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

References:
- Re: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Sunday's multi6 bar BOF, and Monday's jabbering
Next by Date: RE: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01
Previous by thread: Re: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01
Next by thread: Re: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread