Subject: about draft-ohta-multihomed-isps-00.txt

From: "marcelo bagnulo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:25:07 +0100

Hi Masataka,

I wonder, wouldn't this issues be more related to RIR policy than to the
IETF (in particular multi6 wg)?

I mean, if i understand correclty, what it is being proposed in the draft is
somehow similar to what was included in the deprecated aggrgatable global
unicast format (the draft even uses the TLA NLA terminology), and if i
understand correclty, this was decided to be a RIR issue, right?

OTOH, i guess that you are concerned about isp multihoming. IMHO this is a
relevant issue that would be interesting to discuss, but i guess this is not
the appropriate wg for this (considering that it is the SITE multi-homing wg
and that we already have a lot of work to do to make site multihoming work
:-). So perhaps it would be an intersting idea to make an interest list to
discuss this issue without interferring with the work of multi6, what do you
think?

Regards, marcelo

---

From: masataka ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:02:55 +0900

marcelo;

> IETF (in particular multi6 wg)?

It isn't.

RIRs are currently discussing to assign unique address range to multihomed
sites and that is best possible to them who must discuss base on an existing
poor protocol.

> understand correclty, this was decided to be a RIR issue, right?

Was decided? No, I didn't.

That IPv6 WG failed to develop a reasonable protocol is not my
problem.

> discuss this issue without interferring with the work of multi6, what do you

I have no interest to join such a list.

							Masataka Ohta