On Apr 15, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
My "vote" would be no change. But, I'd be OK if Ralph wanted to
state it
is TBD and outside the scope of this document and perhaps indicate
that
it is an issue whether the RG gets options to pass on from either the
container option or fro
My "vote" would be no change. But, I'd be OK if Ralph wanted to state it
is TBD and outside the scope of this document and perhaps indicate that
it is an issue whether the RG gets options to pass on from either the
container option or from those supplied to the RG.
- Bernie
-Original Message
Excerpts from Ted Lemon on Tue, Apr 14, 2009 02:48:06PM -0700:
> I don't mean to minimize this issue - if in fact there is some
> future real-world scenario where this would be a serious problem,
> it would be good if we could anticipate it.
I'm just saying the WG should make an explicit deci
On Apr 15, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
How realistic is that most RGs with multiple interface will connect to
DIFFERENT service providers? And, in the case where they do, this
likely
means someone (the owner of the RG) has to make some decisions --
requiring appropriate configu
I think there are two separate, but related, issues:
One is the multiple interfaces issue on a host.
The other is the multiple interfaces issue on a RG (router/gateway or
routing gateway). The host behind the RG knows nothing of multiple
interfaces -- except in IPv6 it may see multiple prefixes a
I think Ted pointed out very interesting but crucial problems if I
understood correctly. So, I'd like to confirm what Ted indicated and
emphasized:
1. How to dynamically/automatically/efficiently enable and manage
multiple active interfaces on a host?
2. How to utilize multiple active interfaces o
