>> I disagree with you and J. Yu's draft does provide benefit to network
>> operators. I also believe Itojun's does too. All I will say which is
>> about as much context you gave me in your mail. But thats my opinion.
>
>Speaking as a potential customer and sometimes operator, I am still trying
>to figure out what exactly does this draft buy me (a customer) in terms of
>added resilience over just getting diversely homed to the primary ISP in
>the first place.
Exactly. J. Yu's draft works now by administration just like IPv4. No
better, no worse. Anything else is not even proposed std and no product
vendor code bases I am aware of or more directly router vendor v6 code
bases are implementing any IPng disucssion which did not result in any
consensus for IPv6 Working Group.
/jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
