Hi Brian,
|> The argument that took place between the IETF and network |operators when |> shim6 was recommended. | |SHIM6 is in development, so I don't think it's ever been |recommended yet, |and anyway it's not the RRG's job to decide. I distinctly recall it being recommended at a NANOG long ago and the ensuing broohaha. |So can we just |say that solutions above the network layer (including shim6, sctp |and multipath transport) are simply out of scope: the RRG has decided |not to work on them. Anything else is speculation. Except that that's not exactly true. The RRG has not exactly declared them out of scope. So far, solutions that are above the networking layer require per-host renumbering, and we have consensus that those solutions are not acceptable. If someone figured out an architecture (possibly combining automated renumbering technology) that fixed things above the network layer in an acceptable fashion, we would definitely consider it. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
