> So one of IPv6's multihoming approaches is no worse than IPv4, > while another appears to be significantly better. ...in terms of its impact on the routing system. it's not clear that having multiple addresses per host is significantly better for applications in general. my guess is that some applications will do well with multiple-address style multihoming, while others will not. but even if multiple-address style multihoming isn't a suitable replacement for all applications of single-address multihoming, it's still nice to have as an option. Keith
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complicati... David R. Conrad
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-compl... Steve Deering
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-c... David R. Conrad
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-c... Steve Deering
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.t... David R. Conrad
- multihoming (was Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-c... Paul Francis
- Re: multihoming (was Re: draft-ietf-nat-pr... John Stracke
- Re: multihoming (was Re:draft-ietf-nat-pro... Steve Deering
- Re: multihoming (was Re: draft-ietf-na... Paul Francis
- Re: multihoming (was Re: draft-ietf-nat-pr... Thomas Narten
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complicati... Keith Moore
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt Pyda Srisuresh
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt Sean Doran
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt Keith Moore
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt Sean Doran
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt Daniel Senie
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt Sean Doran
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt Leonid Yegoshin
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt Keith Moore
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.t... Bill Manning
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-... Valdis . Kletnieks