Re: initial issues

[Ben Black <ben@layer8.net>]

Ohta,

Yes, thank you, I now have several copies of this draft from every previous
time you have insisted it is the only possible solution to the problem.  I
am sorry you do not see the value of clearly documenting the problem, as
there are those who share neither my views nor your views.  I'm sorry you 
feel it is not constructive to re-evaluate assumptions made in a previous
design.  However, the fact remains that multi6 has a purpose and that 
purpose is to define and attempt to solve multihoming, specifically for v6.

Whatever my own preferences, I am quite willing to listen to and even have
my views changed by the perspectives presented by others.  I believe your
perspective has been made clear.  If you wish to continue to insist on
your way or no way, I encourage you to take it to another list.


Ben

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 07:46:40AM +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Ben;
> 
> > > 
> > > > * 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.
> 
> Yes, because the thread is not constructive.
> 
> As you should be aware, in this thread, you are 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_?
> 
> The requirement is multihoming.
> 
> It is worthless to spend a lot of words try to modify the definition of
> multihoming, because the requirement is not modified.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> You are not constructive, again.
> 
> You are merely stating that there is strong religious beliefs on GSE
> on various lists and the multi6 BoF.
> 
> To be destructively construcive, it was easy to see GSE violate
> the end to end principle and have scalability/robustness problem.
> 
> 							Masataka Ohta
> 
> PS
> 
> A constructive proposal is attached.