Subject: RE: Multi-homing (was RE: Moving backward [Re: Fourth alternative [was Re: Moving forward ....]])

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:37:45 -0700

Tony,

> Tony Hain wrote:
> Insisting on a single address per interface is the only
> way to avoid address selection.

There are ample comments that a lot of enterprise managers will be
favorable to that concept.

> This whole discussion is about multihoming

It has always been the sticking point.

> which points out the failure of the approach to move the
> multihoming discussion into a separate WG. Multi6 should
> be closed NOW.

As a matter of fact, by reading its charter it should have been
rechartered or shutdown in September 2001, almost two years ago. But I
hear that being two years behind objectives without any result is not a
big deal in the IETF.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:27:34 +0200

> hear that being two years behind objectives without any result is not a

Why do this when there finally is momentum? What makes the solutions 
better if we just move them to another WG? The charter and milestones 
are issues that needs to be address though.

- kurtis -