RE: initial issues

[Jim.Bound@nokia.com]

Ben,

Read the pointer on GSE analysis.  I was at the IETF IPv6 Interim meeting
and the official IETF meeting following where it was rejected.  To we want
to discuss the draft pointer on GSE or do the requirements as you say.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Ben Black [mailto:ben@layer8.net]
> Sent: Tuesday,February 13,2001 5:21 PM
> To: Masataka Ohta
> Cc: Sean Doran; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: initial issues
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>