RE: Transport level multihoming

[Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

[snip]
> > was very firm.  IPv6 = Strong aggregation, small DFZ.
>
> yes indeed.  unfortunately, to date, that rather idealistic policy has
> lacked clear technical mechanisms with which to implement it.  and note
> that, as this wg is in the ops area, folk here tend to be rather pragmatic
> about utility and implementability.
>
> so, from that, you may be able to infer what this wg is about.

Yes, it's about excluding new ideas which have strong technical merit
because some people believe that IPv6 has significant implementation
momentum and that the future cost of restructuring the IPv6 Internet to
make it scalable once it falls down is greater then the cost of
potentially slowing this supposedly huge IPv6 momentum.