[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")

Kurt Erik Lindqvist;

>>Application may use UDP with its own timeout.

> So all UDP applications need to modified (or not used at multihomed 
> sites)?

If there is a family of UDP applications sharing the same
idea on "connection", there can be a set of connection
management library functions shared by the applications.
Then, it may be that only the library may be modified.

> This is a discussion that doesn't belong here, but it's not the role of 
> the WG chairs to control the WG.

Then, it was your mistake that you controlled the WG to forbid
presentations of proposals.

> Make a bidding round for the TLI roles? So you want an open market for 
> default-free address space?

Read the draft for an example. It does not say "open".

> So Yahoo would qualify as a TLI? If they won a TLI assignment in the 
> bidding round? While for example NTT might not?

Read the draft.

>>I do recognize the policies and says them orthogonal.

> Well, the bidding for address space has a large chance to off-set the 
> financial models of the Internet today.

As explained in my presentation, it does not.

> Why would customers go to NLIs in the first place? I for one would only 
> by service from TLIs.

It is you who are ignoring the reality.

Why do customers today buy service from tier2 providers?

							Masataka Ohta