RE: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

Not really there are approaches that do not require modifications and if do modify then the positions against SCTP because of modification are invalid and bogus.
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 6:45 AM
> To: Tony Li
> Cc: Multi6; Brian E Carpenter
> Subject: Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts
> 
> 
> El 13/08/2004, a las 12:21, Tony Li escribió:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Years ago, we rejected (a) on the grounds that it would 
> change IPv6
> >>
> >> Well, my understanding is that this is still a valid 
> approach to the 
> >> problem, and i didn't get the feeling that we have rejected it (at 
> >> least since i am in this wg), so, may i ask why did you 
> reject this 
> >> approach?
> >
> >
> > Umm.... as I alluded "we" (not I ;-) rejected this approach because 
> > there are existing
> > IPv6 host implementations.  Those would have to be 'revised' to 
> > support this model.
> > At the time, the WG felt that this was unacceptable.
> >
> 
> Ok. But currently, i think that it seems clear that any of 
> the both approaches will require modifications in both ends 
> of the communication.
> I mean, any solution for preserving established sessions will 
> impose modifications in both ends, mainly because security 
> issues, so i guess that from this p.o.v. both approaches are 
> equally acceptable, right?
> 
> regards, marcelo
> 
> > Tony
> >
> 
> 
>