Hi Pekka, > > My understanding of this entire discussion was that the "bit method" > > was more along these lines: > > > > 1. Addresses for which something stronger than Return > > Routability is needed. > > > > 2. Addresses for which Return Routability is sufficient. > > It originally certainly was. However, at least my thinking has > evolved since then. That is, it *may* be possible, perhaps, to > solve the RR bidding down issue separately. We still don't know.
What would be really useful for this discussion would be documentation (preferable in the form of a Internet Draft). Perhaps a problem statement and/or requirements for this. I'm sure that it is because I am not sufficiently paranoid enough that I miss some of the more subtle parts of this current discussion. (Being paranoid is not a bad thing, however). Documentation would probably be enlightening. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
