Quality Quorum wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote: > > > > Aleksey wrote: > > > BTW, I prepared a draft which spells out NAT6 > > > > If you're tired of life, there probably are better ways to > go than being > > lynched by a crowd of IETFers. > > Ever heard about SNMP wars? I highly doubt that by now there > is so much fire left anywhere in IETF :)
/me puts on his DareDevil suit, hmmm no radar but unlike the real DareDevil I can see and kick your .... :) Or to quote some others: send in the clones. > IMHO being NAT6-neutral/NAT6-friendly would at least reduce its > commercial attractivness (similar to drug legalization). Don't say anything about drug legalization when you don't live in the Netherlands. 80% of the Dutch Nederwiet is destined for export. Thus allowing it only makes it worse. > BTW, giving every organization /48 will lead to a pretty big routing > tables. You are avoiding the fact that 'organizations' (the people getting /48's) get that /48 out of a /32 from their upstream and that the routing table _should_ be filtered on those boundaries Maybe you could take a look at http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/ which, thanks to Gert Doering contains BGP data back to 25 Aug 2001. The routing tables are getting cleaner by the day. See also Gert's presentations at RIPE: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ and his Filtering list: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html If you are talking about Multihoming etc, I am sure Michel Py can enlighten you about it. They have been making great hops of progress the last couple of weeks. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
