Brian E Carpenter writes:
> Michael,
>
> Sorry, but I think you are dead wrong, and you are moving us backward
> and risking another year or two of wasted time.
>
> There is nothing new in this whole argument. As I pointed out
> in the IAB architecture session in Vienna, these issues have been
> around for 6 years at least. We know what we can do with today's
> routing mechanisms, today's renumbering mechanisms, and today's
> security mechanisms, and that leads *directly* to the requirements
> in the Hain/Templin draft, and IMHO *directly* to the solution in
> the Hinden/Haberman draft.
Which leads *directly* to NAT's at "local"
boundaries and /48's in the DFZ.
And Fred's draft really shows how little we know
about renumbering in the real world.
> I think we are way past the point in history where it is fruitful to
> make the sort of free-space wish-the-world-was-different analysis
> you are advocating. Hinden/Haberman leads to simple, straightforward
> changes to shipping code and that's all we can afford now.
I'm having a very difficult time reconciling what
you're saying here with your "Let's abolish" post.
It's almost like you're saying we should do
nothing at all. While nothing is often better than
a bad something, in this case there's shipping
product to fill the vacuum: NAT's. And they are
well understood given their v4 deployment. Is that
what you're ceding?
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
