In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Iljitsch van Beijn
um writes:
>
>On 7-jul-2005, at 0:18, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> With great hindsight it would have been nice if the multi6/shim6
>> design exercise had come *during* the IPv6 design exercise, rather
>> than afterwards: we might have ended up with a protocol/addressing
>> model that accommodated both the address size problem and also the
>> DFZ state bloat issue. Oh well.
>
>Well, maybe I'm too optimistic here, but I believe that if a real
>solution to the DFZ problem presents itself, the IETF will bend over
>backwards and then some to shoehorn it into IP.
>
There were people who tried, way back when. We were outvoted... (The
situation in the IETF has indeed changed.)
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
