Thomas Narten writes:
| So, once again, it appears
| necessary to point out that approaches that work fine in IPv4 work
| just as well in IPv6. But IPv6 also enables new approaches as well,
| some of which are not really practical in IPv4.
You and I are in perfect agreement, though -- I simply point out
that the idea apparently floated by the committee with the folks from
e.g. PSI, NSI, Yahoo!, and so forth is made possible by the new approach
to multihoming in IPv6. Dividing up the IPv4 address space into
a "kid-friendly" and "other" space is not really practical.
So I don't understand your accusation of a "major misrepresentation
about what is *required* by IPv6 versus what is ... possible".
Sean.