Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:41:05 +0859 ()
Kurt;
> >> here are a number of people
> >> who will tell you that this won't scale and break a number of
> >> applications.
> >
> > Since I proposed it in April 2000, no one told me that this won't
> > scale.
>
> That surprises me. Then again I wasn't aware of you draft until you
> mailed it here. What WG do see this under? I will comment to multi6
> anyway...
The draft is:
draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-*.txt
It was mailed to multi6 several times.
> >>> There already is running code of of 8+8, transport over it, such
> >>> as TCP, and applications over it, such as TCP multihomed telephony
> >>> with no address reselection latency, that there is not much work
> >>> remaning.
> >>
> >>> Never mention poor GSE. It is a poor idea useless for any purpose.
> >>>
> >> Uh, what is the difference between 8+8 and GSE?
> >
> > Current IPv6, in a sense, is 8+8 and was 10+6.
>
> ???? you mean the IID being 8 and the rest the other 8? I don't agree...
You don't have to.
> > GSE is a poor variation of 8+8. GSE is poor because it is an attempt
> > to make ISP operation more complex (that is, less scalable), which
> > has been the tradition of telephone companies to maximize their
> > revenue.
> >
> I fail to see what GSE, 8+8 or anything have to do with telephone
> companies.
You don't have to, either.
Just never mention GSE.
Masataka Ohta
