[ppml] for your reading pleasure
> > draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-01.txt
> > in you internetdrafts archive... posted today.
> For those who do not understand the IETF secret handshake,
> this document can be found at the following URL.
Sorry, I should have included the full URL as well.
> It is an update of RFC 3177 so you really should google
> for that RFC and read it before you read this draft.
> People working on new routing/multihoming models should
> also take an interest in this RFC because of the statement:
> RFC3177 suggested that some multihoming approaches (e.g., GSE) might
> benefit from having a fixed /48 boundary. This no longer appears to
> be a significant issue. There is no such requirement coming out of
> the IETF multi6 or shim6 efforts.
> The reference to GSE is to an early proposal that separated
> the IPv6 address into a routing identifier and an end-system
> Cynical people might see this as an IETF attempt to block
> the efforts of people working on new routing/multihoming
And others might view your comment as FUD.
As an author, I state categorically that there is absolutely no
attempt being made here to slow down or halt any ongoing work related
to new routing or multihoming models. I too want to see a solution to
the multihoming problem.
The quoted statement you are having issue is a fact, AFAIK. If you
believe the wording is in error, please explain and perhaps propose
alternate text. That is, do you think the /48 boundary _does_ need to
be retained, in order to support on-going work related to multihoming?
Again, please be specific.