Re: initial issues

[RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>]

At 12:38 13/02/01, Sean Doran wrote:

>It would be disappointing if the IESG's very wise request
>to make the arch draft classless would be rejected by the wg,

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

        In particular, ALL IPv6 unicast forwarding already must
do full mask+match -- doing full mask+match is the actual 
CIDR requirement and that's already been met.

        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.

Ran
rja@inet.org