[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Since Kurtis took off his co-chair hat for this thread,
I will put mine on.
This is not a fruitful discussion, and it certainly
should not be cross-posted.
As Kurtis said, there have been no indications of support
for Masataka's draft in multi6, so subject to the minutes of
the recent meeting being sent to the list and agreed,
it is off the table.
Since multi6 has not firmly identified a solutions direction,
and no work on a specific solution is chartered in the IETF yet,
it's premature to discuss possible impact of multi6 on RIR policy.
Brian
multi6 WG co-chair
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist;
Application may use UDP with its own timeout.
So all UDP applications need to modified (or not used at multihomed
sites)?
If there is a family of UDP applications sharing the same
idea on "connection", there can be a set of connection
management library functions shared by the applications.
Then, it may be that only the library may be modified.
This is a discussion that doesn't belong here, but it's not the role of
the WG chairs to control the WG.
Then, it was your mistake that you controlled the WG to forbid
presentations of proposals.
Make a bidding round for the TLI roles? So you want an open market for
default-free address space?
Read the draft for an example. It does not say "open".
So Yahoo would qualify as a TLI? If they won a TLI assignment in the
bidding round? While for example NTT might not?
Read the draft.
I do recognize the policies and says them orthogonal.
Well, the bidding for address space has a large chance to off-set the
financial models of the Internet today.
As explained in my presentation, it does not.
Why would customers go to NLIs in the first place? I for one would only
by service from TLIs.
It is you who are ignoring the reality.
Why do customers today buy service from tier2 providers?
Masataka Ohta