Leif, I wish I could give you such a reference. In my mind it is a logical path that started with RFC 1900 and RFC 2101, parts of RFC 2775 and RFC 2956, parts of draft-irtf-nsrg-report-09.txt, and multiple discussions on multi6, ipng and other lists over the years, and of course what we have been told about operational practice.
Yes, it would be good to write it up. Brian Leif Johansson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > <snip> > > >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. > > > > > > > Could you give a reference to some text which describes this reasoning in > more detail? I confess that I don't see the connections as clearly as > you do. > > To me Michael has presented some pretty good points and even if you are > right about the logical inevitability of the Hain/Templin draft it could imo > benefit from a bit more stringency. > > Cheers Leif -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
