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

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


At 07:02 AM 8/19/2003, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>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
>Your logic seems to preclude such a conclusion.

I don't think it precludes such a conclusion in the future as any solution 
will need to go through normal IETF processes to advance.  But I do think 
it represented a reasonable conclusion at the time based on the Vienna IETF 
sessions and subsequent discussion.

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

Also FWIW, I think opinions differ on this topic and we will know more when 
there is a specified solution so it's benefits and weaknesses can be 
evaluated.  I note that people have been talking about for almost as long 
as IPv6 has been around.  However, I think it would be unwise for the 
working group to defer what we can do now in this area to wait for this to 
happen.  When or if it happens, it's benefits will encourage everyone to 
adopt it quickly.


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