Subject: RE: Using "a bit" as a protection against bidding down / for somethingelse

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:33:55 +0300

Hi Pekka,

> > My understanding of this entire discussion was that the "bit method"
> > was more along these lines:
> > 
> > 	1. Addresses for which something stronger than Return 
> >      Routability is needed.
> > 
> > 	2. Addresses for which Return Routability is sufficient.
> 
> It originally certainly was.  However, at least my thinking has
> evolved since then.  That is, it *may* be possible, perhaps, to
> solve the RR bidding down issue separately.  We still don't know.

What would be really useful for this discussion would be documentation
(preferable in the form of a Internet Draft).  Perhaps a problem
statement and/or requirements for this.  

I'm sure that it is because I am not sufficiently paranoid enough 
that I miss some of the more subtle parts of this current discussion.
(Being paranoid is not a bad thing, however).   Documentation
would probably be enlightening.

John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:39:28 +0300

> statement and/or requirements for this.

Right, we have realized this as well. Gabriel is about to post
his new draft about the subject soon.

Jari