On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:44:37AM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote: > > My response below. Thus I cannot support this going to the IESG without > further discussion as my input. I also support Margaret's request for > this to be checked by RTSP persons, and I realize Dave T. clearly has > this expertise but it is a good logic check. Unless we want to remove > RSTP. I think we should include RSTP but it needs more review.
This seems sensible. > I also would like to see this work not focus at all on IPv4 and only > address IPv6. The IPv4 work should be a separate document completely. > To permit this behavior for prefixes to span links in IPv6 is a > significant change to one of our architectural precepts for IPv6 and > cannot be considered lightly, regarding link behavior. An interesting point is made in the last para of 1.1, that if PD is used with an existing IPv4 ARP proxying scheme, you may get multiple IPv6 links delegated with one IPv4 subnet, and some potential complications. But I agree that a compromise for IPv6 to cater for IPv4 is a debatable issue. Also, I'm not sure that ISPs charging for multiple prefixes (whether they will or not) and the payment issue needs to be in here? As an aside, I feel the introduction is missing something (and maybe this is linked to Margaret's scoping question) - para 1 talks of "the problem" and para 2 of a "common solution" but the problem isn't stated in the main text (the abstract implies it :). -- Tim/::1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
