RE: multihoming, was IPv10

Brian,

Brian E Carpenter wrote :
Which is exactly why we have to make multi-prefix multihoming work out of the 
box. Which is why we
have RFC 7157 and RFC 8028 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing, and we're not 
done yet.


We have missed the delivery date by 14 years. 

Michel.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt)., (continued) Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt)., John C Klensin Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John Levine Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John R Levine Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Randy Bush Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John Levine Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter RE: multihoming, was IPv10, Michel Py <= Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Masataka Ohta Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Octavio Alvarez Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Stewart Bryant Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Randy Bush Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Jeff Tantsura Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Masataka Ohta Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter

Previous by Date:	Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
Next by Date:	Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John C Klensin
Previous by Thread:	Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
Next by Thread:	Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]