At 07:02 AM 8/19/2003, Erik Nordmark wrote:
I didn't know there were such side effects associated with accepting that as a WG document. My assumption was that it was a fine thing to work on possible replacements and to understand the cost/benefit tradeoffs of such replacements.
But presumably the WG should be capable to still say "we don't like any of them". Your logic seems to preclude such a conclusion.
I don't think it precludes such a conclusion in the future as any solution will need to go through normal IETF processes to advance. But I do think it represented a reasonable conclusion at the time based on the Vienna IETF sessions and subsequent discussion.
FWIW, I think a multi6 solution with id/loc separation will make the local addressing concerns go away.
Also FWIW, I think opinions differ on this topic and we will know more when there is a specified solution so it's benefits and weaknesses can be evaluated. I note that people have been talking about for almost as long as IPv6 has been around. However, I think it would be unwise for the working group to defer what we can do now in this area to wait for this to happen. When or if it happens, it's benefits will encourage everyone to adopt it quickly.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
