[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

To: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
Subject: Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:11:16 +0100
Cc: "Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>, "Michael H. Lambert" <lambert@psc.edu>, <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B03ABCDE7@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>

I have for a quite long time been saying that IPv6 currently does not
give any advantage to IPv4 except longer addresses. Now, there is
enough room for discussion for it's own mailing list so I
guess that is
somewhat off-topic.

May I suggest we not go here?  Not relative to our mission.


I fully agree!!! :-)

- kurtis -

References:
- RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
  - From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Longer prefixes
Next by Date: Re: Architectural approaches to multi6
Previous by thread: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Next by thread: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread