[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Moving forward... IPv4 now, IPv6 less urgent and perhaps more ambitious
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Robin Whittle <email@example.com> wrote:
> I understand the current draft text is:
>> Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6. It may or may not also
>> apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path forward for IPv6.
> I oppose this because it would allow the RRG not to recommend a
> solution for IPv4.
For what it's worth, I agree with Robin. The identified problem is:
find a way to drastically reduce the $8000/year cost of each IPv4
prefix in the core. Shifting focus to IPv6 abandons the problem.
William D. Herrin ................ firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg