Re: [RRG] Arguments against Transport, Translation & Six/One Router

["Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>]

Robin, your note assumes several agreements which have not yet been reached.

We have by no means explored all of the host based or transport based 
solutions.  The WG has not agreed that the solution must be on a site 
level.  There are certainly advantages to site level solutions, but it 
is not a done deal.
We have not even had any serious discussions about whether IPv6 only 
solutions are worth considering.  You simply assert that we must have v4 
as well as v6 solutions.  Again, there are good reasons to want 
solutions for both spaces.  But there are also strong arguments in terms 
of deployment and actual need that indicate that a v6 only solution may 
be more deployable and more useful.  I personally wonder if we might 
well be better off with a v6-centric solution.
You list several further "must not" that are not yet working group 
agreements.  Several of them look like good ideas.  But it is a long 
step from "good constraint if we can meet it" to "must not."
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg