I have to say that jj's post is a fresh approach to this, and I welcome it. Someone has told me recently that kre and myself arguing endlessly about the issue reminded him of Karpov and Kasparov playing the same game 20 times, with some minor variants past the 50th move, and always coming to the same result: draw.
> 1) The u bit only makes sense if we keep the 64-bit boundary, > so we must keep the 64-bit boundary just in case we one day > figure out how to use the u bit. This argument should be > removed because even Michael Py states that it is a red > herring. I.e., even Michael Py states that the strength of > his argument for keeping the 64-bit boundary does not rest > on the possible uses of the u bit. I need to make clear that I do *not* represent the opinion of the heirs of GSE by any means. I am in the same lack of feedback darkness about the future use of the 'u' bit than this WG is about prefixes longer than /64. So, by trying to guess the meaning of silence, we should not forget that there probably are lots of people there that still have strong feelings about this. In other words: I have tried to be intellectually unbiased about the 'u' bit issue, but please take my opinion for what's it's worth, which is basically that I don't give a hoot to it; I don't want my words to be interpreted as the opinion of multihomers. I can lead the horse to the water but I can't make it drink. That being said, allow me to renew my position that is the -09 should be shipped. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
