RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Kurtis,

> Tony Li wrote:
> However, if we do go down the path of long prefix
> distribution, the core is almost certain to implode.
> Here, there be dragons that we should avoid.

I heard Tony's comment from many other persons too. Although I do see
some potential in what you wrote, and as mentioned yesterday I see it
from a different prospective, allow me to remind you what reality here
is:

Quote from the one and only document in this WG:

> 3.2.1 Scalability
>   [snip]
>    A new IPv6 multihoming architecture MUST scale to
>    accommodate orders of magnitude more multihomed
>    sites without imposing unreasonable requirements
>    on the routing system.

As chair, you simply can not recommend to go a way that blatantly
violates the only working document we have. This text is clear, and it's
a "MUST" not a "must" which has a very specific meaning as per RFC 2119.

Michel.