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