Re: multi6-functional-dec and re-homing

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> So, i guess that my point is that when a non shim node is involved in a 
> communication, it would be good if we did more that just  detecting that 
> the shim is not supported, but we could deploy mechanisms to provide 
> enhanced fault tolerance in this scenario.
>
> (It could also be noted that such mechanism is likely to be much simpler 
> than the whole shim and that it will, by itself, provide some degree of 
> fault tolerance, so it may make sense to deploy it even without the shim)
>
> Makes sense?

It makes sense to me.

--Jari