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

Gert Doering;

>>With your fallacy denied, why do you replay the well known
>>fallacy of NAT that NAT is transparent to the upper layers?

> Please STOP cc: ing the address-policy working group on e-mails that
> are purely about protocol design decisions and problems.  

It is not protocol design decision but is information that
Kurt want multi6 not solve the multihoming problem.

I stated it with a well known reason that intermediate entities
such as layer 3.5 and NAT which perform address rewriting can
not be transparent.

> Your opinions about the address policy are known by now, and these 
> e-mails do not contribute further to the discussion at hand.

The point of my post is that 8192 is large enough as the
global routing table size, which is mostly orthogonal to
multi6 issues (except that failure of multi6 bloat the routing
table size indefinitely large).

One important factor not explained yet very well is that BGP
converges slowly as the number of ASes increases, which is
another reason to limit the global routing table size.

						Masataka Ohta