Re: Multi6 WG Last Call (2 of 3) draft-ietf-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt

Hi Tim,

El 28/10/2004, a las 18:02, Tim Chown escribió:

> Hi,
>
> Could/should we add a note that IPv6 renumbering (without a flag day)  
> will
> generally involve a site being multihomed in a transient phase between
> using one prefix and adopting a new prefix?
>

I think i am missing your point...

why does a multi6 solution designer consider this when designing a  
solution?

I mean, as some folks have mentioned earlier, it is good to keep this  
doc short,

Regards, marcelo


> [I recall for Fred's "IPv6 renumbering procedure" draft we discussed  
> the
>  relevance of multihoming to renumbering, and I think the reverse  
> applies.]
>
> A difference is the (probably) each node will be configured to prefer  
> one
> uplink over the other as an existing prefix is deprecated and a new  
> prefix
> introduced, as described in Fred's document (in contrast to being able  
> to
> use both links, with neither being deprecated).
>
> We added some notes on the linkage to section 5.9 of
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chown-v6ops-renumber- 
> thinkabout-00.txt
> which can probably be improved.
>
> A site could also change provider for one of its two uplinks if  
> dual-homed,
> in which case a site may be triple homed while it's primary or  
> secondary
> existing uplink provider changes and is renumbered.
>
> Tim
>
>
------------------------------------------
Please note that my former email address
[email protected] is no longer in use
Please send mail to:
marcelo at it dot uc3m dot es
------------------------------------------