[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Moving forward...
On Jun 18, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Vince Fuller wrote:
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:05:03 -0700
From: Vince Fuller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Tony Li <email@example.com>
Cc: 'rrg' <rrg@psgcom>
Subject: Re: [RRG] Moving forward...
Last week we did a consensus check on the following:
|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.
It's my judgement that we have rough consensus on this. There is
notably from Robin and Bill, but overall, it seems that we have rough
FWIW, put me into the more-rough, non-consensus camp that thinks
solution for IPv4 is a requirement.
Speaking for myself only.
You are not in the non-consensus camp :-)
I had some private exchange with Tony on this issue, but let me put it
in public to help the consensus gathering: I agree that the solution
must work for IPv6, but at the same time,
- IPv4/v6 share the same architecture; the only major fundamental
difference is their address space size.
- my notion of the RRG task is to develop an architectural
solution to routing scalability.
- We should step up a level from looking specific versions of
IP at this stage of solution development. Our solution has to be
an architectural change, and should work for either version.
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