On 11 Oct 2012, at 13:37, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:37, Tim Chown wrote: >> >> If people have specific comments on 3.2.4 where this is contained, please >> make them and we can consider those. > > " Host-based methods such as Shim6 [RFC5533] have been defined, but of > course require support in the hosts." > > Perhaps you should mention MPTCP here too. Well, shim6 is just an example, there's no intent to create an exhaustive list. > My concern about the whole section is that it leaves things open; it would > be better if the architecture could suggest an immediately available > solution, as well as leaving open alternative solutions for the future. > I think that draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat is the > closest thing we have to an immediately available solution, and it's > in the RFC Editor queue. The question then is whether the chairs would like a solution proposed in this section at this point. If they do, then the above draft is a method that could be applied now/soon, and future work might lead to a homenet routing protocol that allows source and destination based routing (for example). > > Nit: your reference to this I-D in homenet-arch-04 is broken. Fixed, thanks. Tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
