[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fourth alternative [was Re: Moving forward ....]



> 
> It's from my reading of the discussion (on the mailing list and in the 
> meetings) and the fact that the working group decided to accept 
> <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt> as a working group document in 
> Vienna.

I didn't know there were such side effects associated with accepting that
as a WG document.
My assumption was that it was a fine thing to work on possible replacements
and to understand the cost/benefit tradeoffs of such replacements.

But presumably the WG should be capable to still say "we don't like any of
them". 
Your logic seems to preclude such a conclusion.

FWIW, I think a multi6 solution with id/loc separation will make the
local addressing concerns go away. 

  Erik

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------