In your letter dated Wed, 2 Jun 2010 13:30:40 +0900 you wrote:
>I think it is chicken-and-egg.
>Right now, the multi-prefix does not work nicely because of the
>lacking mechanisms documented in this draft. And IMO, those people
>will lead to invention of NAT for IPv6.
In Section 4.2 "Next-hop sele
Hi,
On 2010/06/02, at 2:36, Ole Troan wrote:
> Brian,
>
>> Picking 6man as a likely list to discuss this draft...
>
> apologies for the delay. on holiday, but it is raining in Rio today so I
> might as well do email.
>
>>
>> Three high level comments:
>>
>> 1. When we did the work that led
Brian,
> Picking 6man as a likely list to discuss this draft...
apologies for the delay. on holiday, but it is raining in Rio today so I might
as well do email.
>
> Three high level comments:
>
> 1. When we did the work that led to RFC 3582, a very clear consensus
> was that transport-layer s
Hi Brian,
just a minor remark below.
> ...
>
> 2. Since that time, I haven't encountered any IT managers that have
> any idea in their head of deploying multiple IPv6 prefixes in
> parallel,
> even though it's a design feature and as far as I know works pretty
> well apart from the issues raise
Hi,
Picking 6man as a likely list to discuss this draft...
Three high level comments:
1. When we did the work that led to RFC 3582, a very clear consensus
was that transport-layer session survival was a required feature of
any acceptable multihoming solution. That promptly blew the whole
idea of
