On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 04:18:48PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Obviously multicasts are useful so I'm not saying we can't have any. But in
I just want to say that what I'm actually hearing in this is that
you'll waffle on the performance criteria you invented so long as it
means you get to keep RA ("ok, so RA has more multicasts, but they are
-cooler- multicasts!"). Again, this seems to me a repeat of our NANOG
discussion: You "like" RA. I won't even try to stop you.
The rest seems to be repeats of arguments I've already provided my own
answers to elsewhere in this thread, bringing us in a circle again.
So I will perform loop detection.
--
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
--
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
pgpGSZeoXwQVI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
