Kevin Loch wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that these people expected the internet to melt down
>> by supporting this policy, but that's exactly the problem. Within the
>> IETF, we've been working long and hard to find a way to allow for
>> multihoming that we KNOW won't melt the internet, and now just as
>> these efforts are getting close to paying off (shim6)
> In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational community has
> flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement
> for PI.
As shim6 effort was initiated by stupid majority ignoring
various operational and other issues that I'm glad it is
treated properly by the operational community.
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> Now, if they could qualify the
> locally-unique address with a site prefix it would be easier, but that's
> more or less 8+8 which is what IPv6 addressing should have been from the
> beginning... I digress -- that issue was hotly debated when IPv6 was
> being created, and though some of us were strongly in favor of it others
> were strongly opposed.
There was debate. But, 8+8 was rejected without any discussion or
reasoning.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
