Subject: RE: WG next steps

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:45:28 -0800

|   I agree with Shane. Although I would prefer a routing solution (it
|   appears to me that host solutions are a way to get around a network
|   structure that does not preserve end-to-end) I think that 
|   part of the
|   puzzle might be non-routing host solutions.

I have no problems with transport changes being part of the solution.
In fact, I expect that that's a requirement.  However, dealing with
DFZ explosion IS a big part of the problem and it MUST be addressed
by routing and addressing changes.  Today's IPv4 architecture doesn't
scale and MUST NOT be propagated into IPv6.

Tony

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 04:00:04 +0859 ()

Tony Li;

> scale and MUST NOT be propagated into IPv6.

Scalability is restored by NOT relying on routing, so that
no change on routing is necessary.

Any attempt to rely on intermediate intelligence of routing
does not scale.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:41:42 +1100 (EST)

> Any attempt to rely on intermediate intelligence of routing

This is intuitively correct, but I have a hunch that pushing the intellegence
into the end points raises a whole bunch of security problems.  Traditionally
we believe routers have been secure (this may not be case in reality), and this
has been the motivation to find a solution that does not entail end point
intelligence to solve the MH problem.

> 							Masataka Ohta

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            [email-masked]
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210