> Tony Hain wrote: > We are at an impass. Indeed.
> this puts the ADs in a bind, because they would have a hard > time justifing that the IPv6 wg should be tasked with defining > an operational plan that an Operations Area wg is already > tasked to do. Yep. Some will remember that in an attempt to shake things up, a year or two ago I tried to bypass multi6 and sent my text to ngtrans. The result was the addition of text in the ngtrans charter that specifically labeled multihoming solutions as non-goals that would not be looked at by the WG. We're deadlocked. > It is exactly that business model where PI approaches like > Michele's or mine work well. To set the record straight, Tony's drafts have been one of the major sources inspiring GAPI in the early stages. One of the interim releases of MHAP actually used Tony's scheme before GAPI was written. > I have a document that describes the situation and need for PI: > http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/ipv6piaddressusage-04.txt I never bothered writing something like this as Tony's text is also valid for GAPI for the most part. Read it. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
