Subject: Re: Missing DNS reqt? [was Re: (multi6) requirements draft comments]

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:41:27 +0100 (CET)

| This sounds exactly like a description of mobility, and exactly like
| a description of multihoming. I don't think we should be scared of
| common solutions (which is not the same as saying MIPv6 is the
| solution for multihoming).

Remember that this WG is charterd to solve SITE multihoming,
rather than host multihoming.   If the former, which implies
simultaneous connectivity and/or migration for a collection of
hosts from a few to a vast number, can be done using the mechanisms
of the latter (e.g. multi-addressed hosts, MIP6), that's fine and
dandy.  However, first, the charter documents need to be pushed
along the standards track, as discussed in SLC.

	Sean.

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:05:51 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sean Doran" <[email-masked]>

> Remember that this WG is charterd to solve SITE multihoming,

OK, what is your solution ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
http://www.IPv8.info

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:31:20 -0800

Sean,

 Agreed. Let's concentrate on the WG items, i.e., requirements.
 Discussions on specific approaches do seem premature, though
 related and interesting.

-- 
Alex Zinin