RE: stable addressing

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

Just responding to the peanut gallery like everyone else send the others
your bogus mail too and what I stated was not theory but what exists
today.  
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 1:21 PM
> To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject: RE: stable addressing
> 
>     > From: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
> 
>     > The DOD has required the goal that all operations must be fully
>     > transitioned to IPv6 operational by 2008. ... So the 
> DOD is bit more
>     > than the word enamored with IPv6 as Eric stated.
> 
> Jim, I have an entire file full of projections from you (and 
> other IPv6 proponents, to be fair) explaining how IPv6 was 
> going to take over by time T
> - almost all T now long ago history.
> 
> If you have some useful technical point to make, please make 
> it. But let's skip the IPv6 propoganda, OK?
> 
> 
>     > What we have to do here is fix the multihoming problem 
> or forces in the
>     > market will fix it for us.
> 
> Do you have any information on how the market will "fix the 
> multihoming problem", if things here don't happen quickly 
> enough? I'm very interested as to what technical approaches 
> you see happening in that case.
> 
> 	Noel
> 
>