Re: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> Well, first of all there will never be a solution out of multi6 (And  
> the WG is to be closed :-) ), so that is an error. But I am more  
> worried about only addressing this particular solution while there  
> are clearly others being deployed. Note that I am not arguing about  
> the first two sentences quoted above i.e "RFC3177 suggested that some  
> multihoming approaches (e.g., GSE) might   benefit from having a  
> fixed /48 boundary. This no longer appears to be a consideration.". I  
> think that should address moving 3177 to historic - no?

OK, I get it now. I'm happy to remove the last sentence then.

> By 'rule' I meant /48 for end-sites so I think we agree.

Ah, nothing like having a 'violent agreement'. :-)

Thomas