I have 12 years of experience in this field. The reason I re-wrote the draft was to make clear the math behind the evolution of network from wireless technologies. The reason why 'the mathematical premise for the electromagnetic equivalent" is in the draft is the same as was in the previous draft. To explain the limitations brought about by this evolution. As ietf is actively involved in multipath TCP and ipv6 research any imitations in design considerations is relevant for all to know. I would appreciate if you could read the draft in its entirety and comment at least on why the virtual address space with UlLA ipv6 and multipath tcp for virtual bgp neighborship is not a practical solution. That would at least make the matter more concrete.Thanks and regards,Vineet Deshpande
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 23:01, Mikael Abrahamsson<[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, vineet deshpande wrote: > Hi All, > I have re-written the document removing the buzz words and have added a > glossary for any terms used. Request review. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-reclassification/ You need to re-write the entire thing. What is this? Why is it in the document? "2. The Mathematical premise for the electromagnetic equivalent" " 9. IANA Considerations This document describes the need for IP address space reclassification" It just doesn't. At least not in a way I can understand. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
