Subject: [Fwd: Re: Fourth alternative [was Re: Moving forward ....]]

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:08:42 -0700

FYI, I sent this while the list was having problems yesterday.
Since then, I have come to understand that one or more proposals
may be coming out of the multi6 wg in the near future. Looking
forward with an open mind to what may be in the proposals.

Fred
[email-masked]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fourth alternative [was Re: Moving forward ....]
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:02:25 -0700
From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
To: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
CC: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>, Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked]
References: <[email-masked]>

Erik,

Erik Nordmark wrote

>FWIW, I think a multi6 solution with id/loc separation will make the
>local addressing concerns go away.
>
As I asked others in earlier discussion, if you know of a multi6 solution
proposal please do tell. I have been loosely following the HIP work, and
I see the benefits of a stable, portable identifier for use by applications
that can be dynamically (re)associated with locators by the network, e.g.,
due to roaming events. Can HIP or something like it do this? Will we
be seeing a multi6 proposal in the near future?

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------