Subject: Draft Minutes of IPv6 WG meeting

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:39:39 -0500

All,
      Attached are the first draft of the minutes from the IPv6 WG 
meeting
in Washington.  Many thanks to Mat Ford for scribing.  Please review
and provide comments/clarifications/etc on the mailing list.

Regards,
Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:27:37 -0800

> nordmark - peers don't have to be multihomed, but have to implement
> protocol to produce multihoming benefits. has been suggested that for
> transition reasons a proxy might be a nice way to go, but that proxy
> turns out to have nat-like characteristics.
> 
> bagnulo - need to upgrade both hosts to preserve established
> communications through outages, but there are other problems that are
> solved without needing to upgrade peers.

Once I Marcelo reminded me I retracted part of my statement. I don't 
know if you want to capture that my adding my clarification, or by 
editing the item above to be what I meant.

If the former it would make sense to add:
nordmark - You're right. One can get multihoming benefits while the 
communication is established without requiring the peer to implement the 
protocol. But if you want the multihoming benefit for established 
connections, both ends need to implement the protocol.

    Erik