Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

El 13/08/2004, a las 12:21, Tony Li escribió:

> > > Years ago, we rejected (a) on the grounds that it would change IPv6
> >
> > Well, my understanding is that this is still a valid approach to the 
> > problem, and i didn't get the feeling that we have rejected it (at 
> > least since i am in this wg), so, may i ask why did you reject this 
> > approach?
>
>
> Umm.... as I alluded "we" (not I ;-) rejected this approach because 
> there are existing
> IPv6 host implementations.  Those would have to be 'revised' to 
> support this model.
> At the time, the WG felt that this was unacceptable.

Ok. But currently, i think that it seems clear that any of the both 
approaches will require modifications in both ends of the 
communication.
I mean, any solution for preserving established sessions will impose 
modifications in both ends, mainly because security issues, so i guess 
that from this p.o.v. both approaches are equally acceptable, right?

regards, marcelo

> Tony