Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts
Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Organization | IBM |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Tony Li wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Years ago, we rejected (a) on the grounds that it would change IPv6
>>
>>
>> Well, my understanding is that this is still a valid approach to the
>> problem, and i didn't get the feeling that we have rejected it (at
>> least since i am in this wg), so, may i ask why did you reject this
>> approach?
>
>
>
> Umm.... as I alluded "we" (not I ;-) rejected this approach because
> there are existing
> IPv6 host implementations. Those would have to be 'revised' to support
> this model.
> At the time, the WG felt that this was unacceptable.
In my biased opinion, this is why goals 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 in RFC 3582 were
written *exactly* as they are. And they are part of the WG consensus, and
they do *not* exclude host and router modifications.
Brian