[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>>> Ok, so you are actually proposing that we
>>> I'm actually proposing that you read the draft, if you
>>> are interested in multi6 issues.
>> For the record for the RIPE address policy WG, I will take this
>> discussion over to multi6 only.
>
> I would appreciate if you could send us an "executive summary", so
> that people over here that are not so well-versed in the different
> multi6 proposals can try to judge the benefits and costs of this
> proposal.

Which proposal? Ohta-sans? I will rather give you a short update on the 
status of multi6 in general.

> Something that right now confuses *me* is:  If I understand this
> correctly, the 'default-free zone' is meant to be kept below 1000
> routes, so routers can be fast.  But what about the internal
> structure of all these networks?  At least the "internal core" boxes
> need to know all routes for the "NLI"s (or the NLIs' customers), which
> might well be many 1000s...

This is just one out of many proposals (+30) that was brought to the 
multi6 WG. During the interim meeting in Santa Monica last week a 
number of actions where triggered

1) The WG have been asked if they want to adopt 
draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-03.txt as per the charter item 
"practical questions"

2) The WG have been asked if they want to adopt 
draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-02.txt as per the charter item "security 
threats"

3) A classification of many/most of the proposals brought to the multi6 
WG was posted to the mailinglist as well as discussed during the 
interim meeting. The classification was based on 
draft-huston-multi6-architectures-01.txt. During the discussions at the 
interim meeting, the classification was revised and discussed. It was 
concluded that most of the classes either
	a) Lack support
	b) Proposals have been withdrawn by their author
	c) Are interesting as components for other solutions
Based on this it was proposed to concentrate on solutions that are 
either "fat-ip" or wedgelayers at layer "3.5". This classification and 
the reasoning was posted to the multi6 WG mailinglist, and should be 
discussed there if anyone have opinions on it.

Now, there is also the issue that the minutes from the interim meeting 
unfortunately have not been posted yet, as a full day minutes takes 
some time to merge. In the mean time there is a Jabber log at 
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/multi6@ietf.xmpp.org/2004-06-14.html.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQNktaqarNKXTPFCVEQI6LwCg5HxX2NAjrpbMN57Cs3dZrxae2SAAniiJ
Yh5nFQ2QMfuXnFxr9L8j5guw
=RHFL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----