Hi Brian,
> > 1. Don't see what residual threats there are.
> > 2. I see the residual threats, but I think we can live with them.
> >
> > If it's 2, then, cool, we can agree to disagree, end of thread.
> > If it's 1, then we can continue.
>
> I think it's
> 3. I see the residual threats, and I think it's illusory to believe
> that overloading the address significantly reduces them
I agree with you (I support your choice 3). Additionally, I'd modify it to:
3. I see the residual threats, and I think it's illusory to believe
that overloading the address significantly reduces them and
that overloading the address may not be the right architectural
thing to do.
In support of this, I'd suggest reading this:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-arch-changes-00.txt
My simple point being that adding the bit changes somewhat the semantics
of the IP address and it does not seem that there is anywhere near consensus
that this would be the right thing to do.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
