Re: about draft-ohta-multihomed-isps-00.txt

[masataka ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

marcelo;

> Hi Masataka,
>
> I wonder, wouldn't this issues be more related to RIR policy than to the
> IETF (in particular multi6 wg)?

It isn't.

RIRs are currently discussing to assign unique address range to multihomed
sites and that is best possible to them who must discuss base on an existing
poor protocol.

> I mean, if i understand correclty, what it is being proposed in the draft is
> somehow similar to what was included in the deprecated aggrgatable global
> unicast format (the draft even uses the TLA NLA terminology), and if i
> understand correclty, this was decided to be a RIR issue, right?

Was decided? No, I didn't.

That IPv6 WG failed to develop a reasonable protocol is not my
problem.

> OTOH, i guess that you are concerned about isp multihoming. IMHO this is a
> relevant issue that would be interesting to discuss, but i guess this is not
> the appropriate wg for this (considering that it is the SITE multi-homing wg
> and that we already have a lot of work to do to make site multihoming work
> :-). So perhaps it would be an intersting idea to make an interest list to
> discuss this issue without interferring with the work of multi6, what do you
> think?

I have no interest to join such a list.

							Masataka Ohta