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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> 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.

Having proposed exactly that in 1994 as an extension to IPv4, I can hardly
disagree. (See draft-carpenter-aeiou-00.txt if you can find it...)

But that class of solution doesn't change the address length seen by
the routing system, which IMHO is something we cannot reasonably
consider.

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

Send text!

  Brian