[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: (multi6) requirements draft comments
>> Fully agree. All I am suggesting right now is that we don't
>> *assume* PI is the answer for multi6.
Enhanced PI is the SHORT-TERM answer to multi6.
>> If I thought it would scale for tomorrow's Internet, we
>> wouldn't be having this conversation.
It does not scale, and we know it (although there are ways to
scrounge 10 or more years out of it). And, a bad solution is
better than no solution.
>> We agree. So don't build PI into the requirements of multi6.
I am not advocating to build PI into the requirements of multi6.
>>>> This tells me that the road we need to pursue is an
>>>> evolution of the current model as a headstart and continue
>>>> to research other things as incremental changes
>> Please don't build that into the requirements either. Maybe
>> somebody will invent the slam dunk when they see the agreed
>> requirements. (Unlikely, but we mustn't exclude it by
IMHO, this is not relevant. If somebody invents the improbable
universal solution that everyone here has failed to grasp,
we will all agree to toss the requirements overboard.
What I am advocating for is being realistic:
1. As Randy said, we do have a collective responsability to
bring the IPv6 community more or less what exists today for IPv4
and try to clean it as we go.
*** hint ***
2. This is not enough. No single solution actually answers the
big-picture problem and there are three main areas, or classes, or
spaces or whatever that needs to be addressed: big honkin' setup,
home/soho, and mobile, probably with some overlap.
3. The current requirements draft is blocking solutions from being
developped and, as Christian said, it's time to put it to bed.