RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Errrr forget that I will never get through baggage check :---)  Leaving
now.
But we all have to compromise or this will not get done.
/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bound, Jim 
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 6:49 AM
> To: 'Masataka Ohta'
> Cc: Tony Li; Michel Py; Randy Bush; Kurt Erik Lindqvist; Bob 
> Hinden; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  Your own country has IPv6 deployed as I 
> depicted in your native backbone.  You never will get it I 
> fear.  Hope I can talk to you face to face a the IETF to see 
> if we can resolve.  I have a kanto sword given to me my 
> martial arts master should I bring it :--)
> 
> /jim
> 
>  
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:41 AM
> > To: Bound, Jim
> > Cc: Tony Li; Michel Py; Randy Bush; Kurt Erik Lindqvist; Bob 
> > Hinden; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
> > 
> > 
> > Jim;
> > 
> > > >A new industry consortia is now in charge of IPv6?  
> Please, point 
> > > >us at it.  Figuring it out here is 'challenging'.
> > > 
> > > If this and many other specs do not begin to produce 
> solutions in a
> > > timely manner then I predict there will be a deployment 
> > body for IPv6
> > > to go work on those specs and send them to the IETF but not
> > with the
> > > intention of waiting for 4 years for them to complete but 
> implement
> > > and work the IETF at same time.  So my statement was the 
> > result of an
> > > "if".
> > 
> > 4 years?
> > 
> > 8 years have already wasted because some people has been
> > believing leagacy IPv6 were deployable.
> > 
> > 						Masataka Ohta
> > 
>