RE: (multi6) requirements draft comments

[Daniel Hagerty <hag@linnaean.org>]

 > The naming abstraction boundaries you may have to create may not be
 > ones that people are happy with for policy reasons, but K-K
 > guarantees that even a network chock-a-block with the kind of
 > connections you posit here can have efficient (in the sense of
 > small routing tables) routing - *provided* that appropriate naming
 > abstraction boundaries are picked.

    In other words, a techinically proper routing layer implementation
has some serious layer 9 issues to be resolved.