This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Tue Jun 22 14:01:59 CEST 2004
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > Well, there is also a time scale factor. If multi6 concluded today, > someone still needs to do the protocol work, which is at least two > years. Add to that implementation. 10 years might be optimistic. Just for your (other than Kurt) information, there is running code of a multi6 proposal which does not bloat global routing table size, which has been running even before the multi6 WG was formed. The only problem for the deployment of the proposal is that IPv6 is not deployed. Masataka Ohta
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]