Re: Move forward

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

Iljitsch;

> Essentially, 2 is a subset of 3.

You are saying your classification is meaningless.

We can move forward a little if you admit that, by definition,
weak separation is not a subset of strong separation.

The hard part, then, is to define what are "weak" and "strong".

> If we want to do 2
> at all there's the problem that everyone has to implement it before it
> works.

Remember that my 8+8 with doubtlessly-strong separation is
interoperating with leagacy IPv6 stack that it can be deployed
gradually. That is, we can move forward without wasting time
to define what is "weak".

The problem of deploying type 1 is that it will bloat global routing
table unnecessarily, which can not be restored later.

Note that, in an RIR, some says routing table must grow unmanageably
large.

> > The proble is that there is no such solutions.
> 
> There are drafts. Don't know if they solve anything...
> 
> But the point is that we work on it.

We should "move forward", not "work on moving backward".

							Masataka Ohta