On Apr 15, 2014, at 6:55 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: > You're being somewhat disingeneous here, Ted.
No, I'm really not. > We're arguing that information about IPv4 availability should not be > carried by IPv6 RAs, since it avoids a number of very unpleasant > incestuous interactions. That is most certainly a "technical" argument, > however you care to define this particular term. It's not a valid technical objection. The working group thought about the question, came to a conclusion, which is not the one you are advocating, and you haven't said anything that indicates that their conclusion was wrong, because they considered the solution you are proposing and decided that a different solution was better. A technical objection is "this won't work because FOO." What is FOO? _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
