-----Original Message-----
From: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org
[mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 6:45 AM
To: Tony Li
Cc: Multi6; Brian E Carpenter
Subject: Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts
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