[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]
On 18-dec-03, at 9:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I would counter-argue against Tony in another way. If we had variable
length addresses (as some people strongly suggested for IPng) a whole
new class of multihoming solutions might be available. But we don't,
so they aren't. Thus, you cannot argue that solutions *must* be
of address length considerations.
(Please don't kick off a thread on variable length addresses... at
least not here.)
I think that if we can do what we need to do by using variable length
addressing, then the annoyance of having to cram those inside an IPv6
packet in a way that the packet remains routable is probably worth it.
There is lots more in the draft that I don't feel particularly
comfortable with. For instance, the mobility questions.