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]/

[ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Crossposting to address policy and ipv6 working group mail lists
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

peter.sherbin at bell.ca peter.sherbin at bell.ca
Tue Dec 6 17:08:47 CET 2005

>Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:43:56 +0100 (CET)
>From <rogerj at jorgensen.no>
>To: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
> cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net, ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?

<snip>
>so what sort of consensus are we aiming for...? A new policy 
>for AS, a net block, routing policy, multihoming, or just IPv6 in general? 
>...quite a lot of topics have been discussed ... but what are our goal with all this?

Get rid of the current hierarchy which requires ISP in order to connect to the network. The Internet is an aggregation of interconnected networks. We want to replicate what the Mother Nature has already given us, i.e. a brain like structure where neurons (individual networks) have multiple direct connections with each other. As brain cells networks should have about the same size. Network prefix determines the size.

Peter Sherbin
Bell Canada

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Crossposting to address policy and ipv6 working group mail lists
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]