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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf