RE: Open question and Critical dependencies

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

> Dave Crocker wrote:
> >>> Forgive me, but I do not see what it is about shim6 that
> >>> cannot work equally
> >>> well for IPv4.  
> 
> IPv4 doesn't have a 64 bit routing prefix.
> IPv4 doesn't have an interface identifier field.
> IPv4 doesn't have a flow label field.
> IPv4 doesn't have extension headers.
> IPv4 doesn't have the same scaling goals as IPv6.
> IPv4 does have widely deployed NAT already.
> 
> It just makes no sense to do this for IPv4.

For what its worth, I completely agree with Brian on this.  I'd like
to add that lack of a multihoming solution does create a certain
deployment barrier - i.e. - IPv6 needs a multihoming solution, so 
I'd like to focus our energies on tasks that are needed.

John