Re: initial issues

[smd@ebone.net (Sean Doran)]

Ran writes:

|         IPv6 NLA and TLA do not represent a direct equivalence
| to IPv4 classes.  To state otherwise represents a confusion
| of some sort...

No, I was pushing a button I saw pushed elsewhere & it was "cute",
so I just copy-cat-called by reflex.

I've promised Thomas that I'll try to be good and constructive. 
Don't be so sour at me just because I find it difficult. :-)

|         Further, to make multi-homing work well does NOT require
| that TLA or NLA disappear, as some well-formed pre-existing
| proposals demonstrate quite nicely.

For example, you can set both fields to zero or treat both as "don't care"...?

If there is already a fully formed proposal, why does this wg exist?
If it exists to consider this proposal (among others), where is the draft?

	Sean. (ignorant)

ps: okay technically it doesn't exist yet...