Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66 WGLC

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

>> uh oh!  i think i get it.  this is trying to give a new meaning to the
>> word 'multi-homing' which has been in wide use for a few decades.  it
>> means bgp routing with multiple peers (a punny word meaning both any
>> arbitrary bgp neighbor and alternatively one where you only exchange
>> your customers' routes).
>> 
>> can we please use a new, or at least different, word here?
> 
> Theoretically the MIF working-group should be working on that definition
> if I correctly understand their charter.

and, until then, in a droid-like attack, we compound the confusion.
layer four switching here we come.  multi-attached?

randy