Re: initial issues

[Ben Black <ben@layer8.net>]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 07:04:06AM +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Sean;
> 
> > * This  started off a thread in private about what
> > the address assignment policy for v6 should be.  Randy noted also that
> > the IESG has asked for a revision to §2.5.6 of 
> > draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-04.txt to make it classless rather
> > than clasful.  In other words, the multihoming environment for v6
> > is going to be identical to v4, viz. CIDR.   TLA/NLA will no longer exist.
> 
> Stupid.
> 

This is not constructive.  You obviously have strong religious beliefs
regarding what is and is not multihoming, how the Internet _should_ work,
and how networks are engineered.  Many others have different views, and
my personal experiences contradict your assertions regarding how networks
that work are built.  Can we please focus on _requirements_?

As an aside, I personally think a GSE-like approach is more realistic
given the views on multihoming I've seen expressed on various lists and
at the multi6 BoF.  Why all forms of GSE were rejected in favor of the
obviously untenable, unsolved current state is simply beyond me.


Ben