Hi Hannu, thanks for the good question. In the scenario you are describing, (host-based) Six/One would only see the single PI address presented to it by (network-based) Six/One Router. Therefore, hosts would simply not use Six/One in edge networks that run Six/One Router.
BTW, the same applies to all host-based multi-homing protocols, be it Six/One, Shim6, HIP, ILNP, etc. Regarding the expiry of six-one-01: I should resubmit this document in paper format, so that it does not expire. Please consider it an active document anyway. Best, - Christian On Jul 21, 2008, at 14:45, Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
Hello Christian! Thank you for good write-ups and updates to Six/One proposal. I was wondering how do you see the host based approach of draft-vogt-rrg-six-one-01.txt fitting with the unilateral mode in http://users.piuha.net/chvogt/pub/2008/vogt-2008-six-one-router-design .p df? In the later document you do not seem to discuss the host based approach. However, it looks to me that if a host is performing the address rewrites of Six/one in the local network then the remote network believes that it should be in the unilateral mode unless the bilateral/unilateral bit/header is not conveyed by the Six/one host. I also notice that the six-one-01.txt draft is expired which could explain why the six/one capable host functionality is not mentioned in the other document.
-- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
