(The reason for the late reply and all the late emails is that my laptop had a disk crash during my vacation, but I had a backup with mails I had replied to but not sent...)
Tony,
On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 09:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
This whole discussion is about multihoming, which points out the failure of
the approach to move the multihoming discussion into a separate WG. Multi6
should be closed NOW, and that work should be folded back into the IPv6 WG
so there can be a comprehensive approach to the issues (this is independent
of the fact that the thread in an Ops WG is really about rearchitecting the
Internet).
I disagree with this. The multihoming problem is not a ipv6 problem alone.
As we stand now, all discussions about multihoming are assumed to be taking place over there, so we don't recognize the address selection discussion as being the same thing.
This is not entirely true. I remember the chairs in Vienna actually asking what we should do with this issue and where it belongs. This was also brought up in the multi6 meeting. So the issue is recognized as being similar, if not the same.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
