>> much talk and fud about this. in practice, this does not seem to be
>> a problem.
> It is clear that there is a *potential* for trouble.
yup. and there is a potential for an earthquake. as an engineer, i deal
with the pragmatic realities i face, and don't make american-style laws
to prevent my self from being in a tall building in case there is an
earthquake.
> If one controls the environment sufficiently, uses protocols that are
> relatively robust to network failures, one can make it work. Even work
> quite well it would seem. That is fine and we should acknowledge this.
and not prevent it, thank you.
> But it is also not helpful to just assert "it works in practice"
> without acknowledging that there are real dangers when used
> inappropriately. i.e., the "it" needs to be qualified, as not all
> "its" will work equally well.
sure. as many weasel words as folk need, within reason. but don't code
against it in routers, hosts, ...
randy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
