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

Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]

To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Subject: Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 09:44:20 +0300
Cc: Multi6 List <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <778E1EDC-CDA1-11D8-9011-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Organization: None
References: <6938661A6EDA8A4EA8D1419BCE46F24C0406072B@xch-nw-27.nw.nos.boeing.com> <40E7CAE6.5060503@zurich.ibm.com> <778E1EDC-CDA1-11D8-9011-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Reply-to: jari.arkko@piuha.net
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

Unless I'm mistaken HIP is still work in progress so that doesn't help.


Is your intent to choose the multi6 protocol from only those
solution candidates which have already been defined and
completed? Please point me to the RFCs ;-)

--Jari

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>

References:
- RE: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches
  - From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
- Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
- Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
Next by Date: Re: Advantages and disadvantages of using CB64 type of identifiers
Previous by thread: Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
Next by thread: Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread