Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66 WGLC

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> I actually have a problem with that definition, though. Yes, a host
> can act as if it were multiple; virtual hosts do that. But in MultiTCP
> and shim6, the host behaves as if it has more than one address, and
> the address is (correctly) understood to be a determiner of a route. I
> understand what Jon was getting at, but I think it is too limiting.

a lot of what jon was getting at was too limiting.  some consider that a
feature not a bug.

    It's perfectly appropriate to be upset.  I thought of it in a
    slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in
    the early days, we figured out this consistent path through the
    space: IP, TCP, and so on.  What's been happening over the last few
    years is that the IETF is filling the rest of the space with every
    alternative approach, not necessarily any better.  Every possible
    alternative is now being written down.  And it's not useful.  
    -- Jon Postel (the summer before he died)

randy