This is way off-topic and I apologies for this.
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: Agreed. The flaws of IPv6 comes down to not solving the multihomign/routing scaling/world starvation problem. That is an IETF problem, and there is a WG for it.
For the record, and the following are verifiable _facts_: the IRTF and the IETF have been working on this problem for the last ten years.
No one will disagree with you. The multi6 WG have certainly not delivered and that is not a secret. There are a number of reasons for that. However, I took over as co-chair with one of the goals to make it move forward, and we seem to be starting. In order to make your mail somewhat fair, it is also worth pointing out that to my knowledge Michel disagrees with multi6, and thinks it should be closed down. I am not clear on what you want to do instead to solve the problem except your own MHAP proposal. Michel started his own mailinglist, which AFAI can tell have not reach any more consensus than multi6 have.
One of the Area Directors responsible for the multi6 WG has called it the "Titanic". By Kurtis' own account it is going to be 5 to 10 more years before they find a solution, if they do.
You are now putting words in my mouth. I said that it would take us 5-10 years before we have a solution widely deployed. The same goes for most solutions I have seen proposed.
The WG that Kurtis co-chairs has not even agreed to _requirements_ that were due two years ago; they are calling it recommendations now with zero proposals on the table.
I am not sure we have been reading the same mailinglist, but the current discussions are around how to limit the number of proposals and how to group them. If you like it or not, a solution to the multi6 problem will require an overall architecture. And that needs to fit with the rest of the Internet and what is going on in genereal.
Anyone that wants to have a glimpse of what the IETF is going to do for them is encouraged to read Kurtis' own draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kurtis-multihoming- longprefix- 00.txt
Picking out one single personal draft does not say anything about what the IETF will do for anyone. I have never said this proposal is perfect, far from it. Michel have his own personal opinion and agenda. That is fine. I prefer disagreeing with Michel working on his own proposal outside the IETF and getting it implemented and not standardized instead of people not working on this problem at all. - kurtis -