[ppml] for your reading pleasure

[Thomas Narten]

> > 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.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-01.txt

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
> designator.

yep.

> Cynical people might see this as an IETF attempt to block
> the efforts of people working on new routing/multihoming
> models.

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.

Thomas