Skip to main content

First-Hop Router Selection by Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network
draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-11-16
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-11-12
10 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2016-11-11
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-10-21
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-10-13
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2016-10-13
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-10-13
10 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-10-13
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-10-13
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2016-10-13
10 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2016-10-13
10 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-10-13
10 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-10-13
10 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-10-13
10 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-10-07
10 Alia Atlas [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my concerns.
2016-10-07
10 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alia Atlas has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2016-10-07
10 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10.txt
2016-10-07
10 (System) New version approved
2016-10-07
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " (Unknown)" , "Brian Carpenter" , 6man-chairs@ietf.org
2016-10-07
09 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2016-08-24
09 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-09.txt
2016-08-19
08 Brian Carpenter IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-08-19
08 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-08.txt
2016-08-15
07 Jonathan Hardwick Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-08-11
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ben Laurie.
2016-08-08
07 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-08-04
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2016-08-04
07 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2016-08-04
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2016-08-03
07 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-08-03
07 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-08-03
07 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-08-03
07 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-08-03
07 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2016-08-02
07 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-08-02
07 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
Besides my first comment (which matches Alia's DISCUSS, which I support, but offers a slightly different point of view), I don't think that …
[Ballot comment]
Besides my first comment (which matches Alia's DISCUSS, which I support, but offers a slightly different point of view), I don't think that my comments raise to the point of a DISCUSS, but I would really like them to be considered as a STRONG COMMENT (stronger ones are at the top).

1. First of all, there's the topic of the scope.  From Section 1. (Introduction and Applicability):  "…the mechanics of egress routing once the packet leaves the host are out of scope."  But then in Section 2.2. (Expectations of multi homed networks) you write that "The direct implication of Section 2.1 is that, if the network uses a routing protocol, the routing protocols used in multihomed networks SHOULD implement source-prefix based egress routing".  I think that the "SHOULD" goes against the fact that routing is out of scope.  While the general statement (of needing src-dst routing) may be true, for the networks shown in 2.1 all you really need is a default route as the topology and the host itself take care of selecting the correct exit point — so it is also not that direct of an implication.  Proposed solution: ideally get rid of 2.2, but I'm fine with changing the "SHOULD" for something not in RFC2119, for example may need to/is for future investigation/…

2. In Section 1. (Introduction and Applicability) there are 2 places that say that implementations "will need to extend/add support".  What does that mean?  This document is a specification of what has to be done, so it shouldn't read like a list of future actions.  Given that the next sentence warns that "Hosts that do not support these features may fail to communicate in the presence of filters as described above."…I would like to see the text be a little more prescriptive than just saying "will need to extend" or "will need to add support".  "SHOULD" seems appropriate.

2.1.  In the same piece of text…  "…this specification is consistent with [RFC4861].  Nevertheless, implementers of Sections 5.2, 6.2.3, 6.3.4 and 8 of RFC 4861 will need to extend their implementations accordingly."  It would be very nice if the text included the sections where the appropriate extensions are mentioned/defined — presumably these extensions are how RFC4861 is Updated.

2.2. Same text…  "This specification is fully consistent with [RFC6724] and implementers will need to add support for its Rule 5.5."  It may not be apparent (at this point in the text) to everyone that 5.5 applies to the case where information related to which next-hop advertised which prefix (or that the document is going in that direction) -- please include a reference to section 3.3.

3. In Section 3.1. (Interpreting Router Advertisements), "…Bob-A and one had advertised itself as a default router or as having a route to Alice, that is the router Bob should choose.  If none of Bob-A have advertised that but Bob-B has, it is irrelevant; Bob is using the address allocated in PA and courts a BCP 38 discard if he doesn't send the packet to Bob-A."  I think this case is irrelevant too, but not because Bob knows/thinks about BCP 38 — it is irrelevant because of Rule 5.5 in rfc6724 (if I'm reading the order of the rules correctly).  Please clarify.
2016-08-02
07 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-08-02
07 Alia Atlas
[Ballot discuss]
In section 2.2, the document says:

"The direct implication of Section 2.1 is that, if the network uses a
  routing protocol, the …
[Ballot discuss]
In section 2.2, the document says:

"The direct implication of Section 2.1 is that, if the network uses a
  routing protocol, the routing protocols used in multihomed networks
  SHOULD implement source-prefix based egress routing, for example as
  described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]."

I understand the desire behind this statement - but find the SHOULD extremely
strong given that we don't even have any routing protocol extensions adopted by
ISIS, OPSF or even Babel WGs to handle source-prefix based egress routing. 
I know that we are actively discussing the problems motivating this statement
and, I hope, making progress.  However, I don't think that the dynamics or scaling
or potential looping (for routers that don't support the same source prefixes) have
been fully described or resolved.

While this problem has been discussed in rtgwg, I do not yet see consensus in the
Routing Area that this is the agreed solution.  The email sent by v6ops about this
problem recommended src-dest-routing as a solution and, indeed, that is being
investigated.

At a minimum, the language in this section needs to change from SHOULD.
2016-08-02
07 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-08-02
07 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

general: I think this is very verbose, an editing pass
to remove as many words as possible would be good, some
examples below …
[Ballot comment]

general: I think this is very verbose, an editing pass
to remove as many words as possible would be good, some
examples below where I think more words confused me more
than was needed...

- Abstract: is bcp38 really crucial here or advisory? If
the latter, then I'd suggest not making it sound like it
is necessary, no matter how much we'd like it deployed.

- intro: "the only consistent solution" may be an
overstatement (unless you can prove there is no other)

- text on p4 after figure 1: it's probably me but I
found reading this a slog, not sure if it's really
needed, but if (part of) it is, making the necessary
bits clearer would seem like a fine plan. If it's not
needed, maybe delete some or all of it.

- 2.1: When you say SLAAC here, are you encompassing use
of privacy addresses? Sometimes those are presented as
an alternative to SLAAC but I'm not sure which is the
more correct terminology. In any case, I assume this
document is intended to fully work with privacy
addresses.
2016-08-02
07 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-08-01
07 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-08-01
07 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
I have a  few minor comments:

-1.1,  indented paragraphs (A) and (B):
It's not entirely clear to me if these restate requirements from …
[Ballot comment]
I have a  few minor comments:

-1.1,  indented paragraphs (A) and (B):
It's not entirely clear to me if these restate requirements from 1122, or if these are requirements from this document that might "confuse" the Strong Host model. If the former, please consider dropping the 2119 keywords.

-2.1, first paragraph: Please expand SLAAC on first mention.

- 2.1, 2nd paragraph:
s/implementation/implementations
s/the two routers may not even know/each router may not even know

-3, title: Does this refer to expectations the host has, or that other things have of the host? If the latter, what expects them? (Previous section talked about expectations the host has on the network; is this section about expectations the network (operator) has on the host?
2016-08-01
07 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-08-01
07 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-08-01
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot has been issued
2016-08-01
07 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-08-01
07 Suresh Krishnan Created "Approve" ballot
2016-08-01
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-07-26
07 Suresh Krishnan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-08-04
2016-07-25
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke
2016-07-25
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke
2016-07-18
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-07-18
07 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-07-14
07 Jon Hudson Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Julien Meuric
2016-07-14
07 Jon Hudson Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Julien Meuric
2016-07-14
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont
2016-07-14
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont
2016-07-14
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie
2016-07-14
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie
2016-07-14
07 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-07-14
07 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ipv6@ietf.org, "Jouni Korhonen" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, jounikor@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ipv6@ietf.org, "Jouni Korhonen" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, jounikor@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Routing packets from hosts in a multi-prefix network) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'Routing packets from hosts in a multi-prefix network'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-04. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes expected IPv6 host behavior in a scenario
  that has more than one prefix, each allocated by an upstream network
  that implements BCP 38 ingress filtering, when the host has multiple
  routers to choose from.  It also applies to other scenarios such as
  the usage of stateful firewalls that effectively act as address-based
  filters.  This host behavior may interact with source address
  selection in a given implementation, but logically follows it.  Given
  that the network or host is, or appears to be, multihomed with
  multiple provider-allocated addresses, that the host has elected to
  use a source address in a given prefix, and that some but not all
  neighboring routers are advertising that prefix in their Router
  Advertisement Prefix Information Options, this document specifies to
  which router a host should present its transmission.  It updates RFC
  4861
.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2016-07-14
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-07-14
07 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2016-07-13
07 Suresh Krishnan Last call was requested
2016-07-13
07 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2016-07-13
07 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Last Call Requested
2016-07-13
07 Suresh Krishnan Last call was requested
2016-07-13
07 Suresh Krishnan Last call announcement was generated
2016-07-13
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-07-13
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was generated
2016-07-13
07 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2016-06-23
07 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07.txt
2016-06-08
06 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Zhen Cao.
2016-05-25
06 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos.
2016-05-20
06 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Zhen Cao
2016-05-20
06 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Zhen Cao
2016-05-20
06 Bernie Volz Assignment of request for Early review by INTDIR to DENG Hui was rejected
2016-05-18
06 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to DENG Hui
2016-05-18
06 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to DENG Hui
2016-05-18
06 Bernie Volz Assignment of request for Early review by INTDIR to Joe Abley was rejected
2016-05-17
06 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Bernardos
2016-05-17
06 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Bernardos
2016-05-17
06 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Joe Abley
2016-05-17
06 Bernie Volz Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Joe Abley
2016-05-09
06 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-05-05
06 Bob Hinden
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Proposed Standard. The type is indicated in the title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes expected IPv6 host behavior in a network that
  has more than one prefix and next-hop routers to choose from, and each
  prefix allocated by an upstream network/router also implements BCP 38
  (RFC2827) ingress filtering. The document also applies to other deployment
  cases such as the usage of stateful firewalls. The solution described in the
  document may interact with the RFC6724 source address selection Rule 5.5.
  This concerns the situation where a multihomed host has multiple provider
  allocated  addresses (formed from a Router Advertisement advertised prefixes
  received from multiple but not necessarily all next-hop routers) and the
  host should know to which router to send its traffic sourced from a given
  source address.

  The document updates RFC4861.

Working Group Summary

  The document has the support of the WG. There is no points with
  controversy and/or rough consensus.

Document Quality

  The solution described in the document is already implemented
  in some form by some popular operating system IP stacks.

  The document does not contain MIBs, Media Types or
  other expert review requiring material.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document Shepherd.
  Suresh Krishnan (suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com) is the responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The shepherd has done a review of the -06 version of the document
  and found it ready for publication. There are some small editorial
  nits that can and will be corrected by the RFC Editor.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  Not really. The shepherd does recommend that the Int-Dir also reviews
  the document as a part of the typical directorate review cycle

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes. Both authors indicated they have no knowledge of IPRs on this
  document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The document has been discussed in length in the 6MAN WG. There
  is a consensus behind this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No IDnits found that need to be corrected. Some of the reported
  IDnits are either mistakenly caught editorial issues or would be
  automatically corrected when a new revision of the document is
  produced.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  None.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  Yes. RFC4681 will be updated and this is indicated in the title page
  header and the abstract.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  Not applicable. There are no requests to IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  Not applicable. There are no requests to IANA.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  Not applicable.
2016-05-05
06 Bob Hinden Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan
2016-05-05
06 Bob Hinden IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-05-05
06 Bob Hinden IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-05-05
06 Bob Hinden IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-05-05
06 Bob Hinden IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2016-05-05
06 Jouni Korhonen Notification list changed to "Jouni Korhonen" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> from "Jouni Korhonen" <jounikor@gmail.com>
2016-05-05
06 Jouni Korhonen Changed document writeup
2016-05-05
06 Jouni Korhonen Changed document writeup
2016-05-04
06 Jouni Korhonen Changed document writeup
2016-05-03
06 Jouni Korhonen Changed document writeup
2016-04-21
06 Ole Trøan Notification list changed to "Jouni Korhonen" <jounikor@gmail.com>
2016-04-21
06 Ole Trøan Document shepherd changed to Jouni Korhonen
2016-02-22
06 Fred Baker New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-06.txt
2016-02-22
05 Fred Baker New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-05.txt
2016-02-18
04 Fred Baker New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-04.txt
2016-02-04
03 Bob Hinden IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-02-04
03 Bob Hinden Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-02-04
03 Bob Hinden Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-12-16
03 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-03.txt
2015-11-03
02 Fred Baker New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-02.txt
2015-10-15
01 Fred Baker This document now replaces draft-baker-6man-multi-homed-host instead of None
2015-10-15
01 Fred Baker New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-01.txt
2015-10-15
00 Fred Baker New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-00.txt