The Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (shim6) working group in the
Internet Area has concluded. The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and
Ralph Droms.
The mailing list will remain active.
The SHIM6 working group has published its core set of specifications
some years ago, and recently
The Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (shim6) working group in the
Internet Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional
information, please contact the Area Directors or the working group
Chairs.
Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (shim6
The Site Multihoming in IPv6 WG (multi6) in the Operations and Management
Area has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Davis Kessens and Dan Romascanu.
The mailing list will be closed.
___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4219
Title: Things Multihoming in IPv6 (MULTI6) Developers
Should Think About
Author(s): E. Lear
Status: Informational
Date: October 2005
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Internet Area. For additional
information, please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
+++
Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (shim6)
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chair(s
Perry;
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As it looks like the long term solution will be some kind of
identifier/locator separation which will have a huge impact on all
aspects of IPv6, I think this topic deserves attention from a wider
audience than it's getting now.
J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you seem to have forgotten since the last time I pointed this out to you,
MobileIPv6 represents a fully-worked-out design which separates identity
I haven't forgotten. I simply disagree that it was a useful point.
I guess you're happy to push a
Just how fully worked was IPv6 when the IETF picked it?
I clearly remember ipng area directors barging into wg after wg
exhorting them to ship whatever they had done, and never mind
the rest. We can always fix it when we go to draft was the
rationalization of the complaisant
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:07:57 EST, J. Noel Chiappa said:
Just how fully worked was IPv6 when the IETF picked it? Much of the
existing IPv6 protocol specs (e.g. the MIPv6 referred to above) weren't even
a gleam in someone's eye then, but apparently the extremely incomplete state
of IPv6 at that
From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Identifier/locator separation has been a topic of conversation
at
the
IETF for at least the last decade if not longer. In spite of
this
continuous interest, an actual fruitful proposal has yet to
arrive.
As you seem to have
could be done in IPv6, but it isn't, since this type of
multihoming isn't considered scalable enough. The multi6 working group
has been working on requirements for multihoming in IPv6 for a while
now, coming close to consensus on several occasions but never quite
reaching it.
Unfortunately
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As it looks like the long term solution will be some kind of
identifier/locator separation which will have a huge impact on all
aspects of IPv6, I think this topic deserves attention from a wider
audience than it's getting now.
I highly recommend attempting to do a fully worked proposal complete
with documents before bringing up the topic in a broad audience -- it
will increase your credibility markedly.
the paradox is that it's difficult to know what requirements
a 'fully worked proposal' must meet without first
From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Identifier/locator separation has been a topic of conversation at the
IETF for at least the last decade if not longer. In spite of this
continuous interest, an actual fruitful proposal has yet to arrive.
As you seem to have forgotten
14 matches
Mail list logo
