Re: [DNA-BOF] Detecting Network Attachment BoF description (rev 2)

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Alper Yegin <alper@docomolabs-usa.com> writes:

> > Is this what you meant?
> > If so, should we be thinking about multi-link subnets?

> Yes, why not? Unless IETF decided to not adopt
> draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-01.txt... This is an expired draft, that
> was once an official IPv6 WG item. Later it was decided to tackle this
> elsewhere, and I don't know its latest status...

At present, it is unclear that "multilink subnet" work is going
forward in the IETF. It is NOT being worked on my any current WG,
though it is being discussed a bit again within the zerouter context
(which is not a WG yet). Thus, I'm not sure how productive it is to be
desinging around a moving target of unknown properties... 

> Not really. Because even if the subnet is the same (if we are defining the
> subnet based on the prefixes) there might need to be changes (see earlier
> discussion on multi-links).

Can you give an example  of some of those changes, and why they would
need to be taken into account?

Thomas