IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Multihoming Issues

Caitlin Bestler <caitlinb@rp.asomi.net> Wed, 04 September 2002 21:56 UTC

Received: from loki.ietf.org (loki [10.27.2.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22953; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:56:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from adm@localhost) by loki.ietf.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA28233 for ietf-outbound.09@loki.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:40:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [10.27.2.28]) by loki.ietf.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA28211 for <ietf-mainout@loki.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:39:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id RAA22576 for ietf-mainout@loki.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:38:23 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to owner-ietf@ietf.org using -f
Received: from rp.asomi.net (64-144-5-25.client.dsl.net [64.144.5.25]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22568 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:38:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 192.168.0.2 (g4.asomi.net [192.168.0.2]) by rp.asomi.net (8.11.3/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id g84IlIt05627 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:47:18 -0500
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 16:39:55 -0500
From: Caitlin Bestler <caitlinb@rp.asomi.net>
Subject: Re: Multihoming Issues
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <010501c25415$a6705020$8c56fea9@repligate>
Message-ID: <r01050300-1015-DA30030CC04E11D6AFB0003065D48EE0@[192.168.0.2]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; Charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 9/4/02, Jim Fleming wrote:

>From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
>> Could we switch this thread to where it belongs (the
>> multi6 WG)?
>=============================
>
>Would it not be more appropriate on an IPv6-based network ?
>Why would IPv4 users (here) care about A6 ?
>

Does that mean that you believe "IPv8" should only be
discussed on "IPv8" networks?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email