Re: initial issues

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Jim;

> multihoming I agree with you.  I think Itojun is the only technical proposal
> on the list thus far to try to approach what the requirements and discussion
> can revolve around.

It is a waste of time.

If some people do not recognize a problem, there discussion on the
requirements will be long, heated but unproductive.

> IPv6 Routing??  That is in the Routing Area of the IETF and the charter of
> this group is 
> not I hope to try to build routing protocols.

Good. You agree with me. The current problem of v4 multihoming is
that v4 routing is overloaded by multihoming support.

Several people are trying to solve v6 multihoming by overloading
the routing system even more. GSE is an example.

> IPv6 addressing is not to be done here but in IPng.  Clearly as routing the
> WG will have to look at addressing as it relates to operators, nodes, and
> providers.  But any changes to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture is in the
> charter of the IPng WG in the Internet Area of the IETF.

But, you are entangled by too much sectionalism.

							Masataka Ohta