[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: optimum routing table size
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I don't think this topic is relevant to the next steps planned
> for this WG, and it is a very old story that has been discussed
> often for more than ten years.
Thank you again for yet another demonstration of poor chairing.
The current most "Description of Working Group" in WG homepage,
content on which chairs are highly responsible, still says;
IPv6 differs from IPv4 in ways that may allow for
different approaches to multihoming that are not
immediately applicable to IPv4. For example, IPv6 has
larger addresses, hosts support multiple addresses per
interface, and relatively few IPv6 address blocks have
been given out