Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

Sorry for being imprecise in my comment, i was considering solutions 
below transport layer here.

Regards, marcelo
El 13/08/2004, a las 16:13, Bound, Jim escribió:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>