Re: optimum routing table size

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I don't think this topic is relevant to the next steps planned
> for this WG, and it is a very old story that has been discussed
> often for more than ten years.

Thank you again for yet another demonstration of poor chairing.

The current most "Description of Working Group" in WG homepage,
content on which chairs are highly responsible, still says;

	IPv6 differs from IPv4 in ways that may allow for
	different approaches to multihoming that are not
	immediately applicable to IPv4. For example, IPv6 has
	larger addresses, hosts support multiple addresses per
	interface, and relatively few IPv6 address blocks have
	been given out

						Masataka Ohta