Subject: Re: [Int-area] introducing a new IPv4 option [was RE: [BEHAVE] Revealing identity of TCP client connection when sharing IPv4 address]

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:44:18 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>

    > because the software and stack have already osified. 

The implication being that that's not true for IPv6? That will please the
ILNP people to hear, I'm sure, what with ILNP being the official RRG
recommendation for multi-homing support (now that MULTI6 has been turned down
by the users) - since ILNP requires changes to the host stacks (in the IPv6
and TCPv6 code). So how well you do think that change will be accepted by
the v6 host community?

	Noel

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:00:12 -0700

On 10/15/10 11:44 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> The implication being that that's not true for IPv6?

However painful it may be, altering the stacks of devices not yet built
is easier than that of those already in the field.

> That will please the

I believe the word you're looking for is recalcitrant.