[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

hiya,

(removed address-policy-wg from the cc:)

On 11/28/05, Jørgen Hovland <jorgen at hovland.cx> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> >
> >#2 sounds like PI to me. What have I missed?
>
> Hello McTim,
> You are correct. That's why I wrote PI in the email:-).

I guess I misread the below wrong then ;-)

Jørgen Hovland wrote:

>> -
>> 1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix.

> It is an attempt to suggest an alternative idea to the PI discussion.
> Don't get me wrong. I am for PI. This idea is perhaps a bit more
> hierarchical instead of the standard flat one. Just making sure we have
> thought of everything before we reach consensus

I am sure thiat consensus will take a very long tiime on this one!  We
will probably have to talk about grotopological v6 adressing (as they
are doing on the ARIN ppml) and a host of other issues.   I reckon we
ought to wait for shim6 to do their work as well.

> because this PI discussion
> is very important to ipv6.

v. true.

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim