[75913] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kurt Erik Lindqvist)
Sun Nov 28 09:12:42 2004
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411221019170.12095-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:11:52 +0100
To: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-22, at 19.29, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> What is bad however is that IETF instead of pursuing it as
> one effort has several of them including MULTI6, HIP, etc.
I don't see this as really true. MUTLI& is tasked with solving the
problem of scalable site-multihoming for IPv6. HIP is tasked with
defining the experimental protocol HIP. They are not mutually
exclusive. I would actually like to argue that they are more
complimentary.
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQancq6arNKXTPFCVEQKD8wCfV11jFyqW1swUJyP6h0ToB8OR4N8An2NM
mxR7AmAf8qKnp/E3967ge1HO
=pJet
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
