Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 18-dec-03, at 9:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I would counter-argue against Tony in another way. If we had variable
> length addresses (as some people strongly suggested for IPng) a whole
> new class of multihoming solutions might be available. But we don't,
> so they aren't. Thus, you cannot argue that solutions *must* be 
> independent
> of address length considerations.

> (Please don't kick off a thread on variable length addresses... at
> least not here.)

Why not?

I think that if we can do what we need to do by using variable length 
addressing, then the annoyance of having to cram those inside an IPv6 
packet in a way that the packet remains routable is probably worth it.

There is lots more in the draft that I don't feel particularly 
comfortable with. For instance, the mobility questions.