[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Arguments against Transport, Translation & Six/One Router
Robin, your note assumes several agreements which have not yet been reached.
We have by no means explored all of the host based or transport based
solutions. The WG has not agreed that the solution must be on a site
level. There are certainly advantages to site level solutions, but it
is not a done deal.
We have not even had any serious discussions about whether IPv6 only
solutions are worth considering. You simply assert that we must have v4
as well as v6 solutions. Again, there are good reasons to want
solutions for both spaces. But there are also strong arguments in terms
of deployment and actual need that indicate that a v6 only solution may
be more deployable and more useful. I personally wonder if we might
well be better off with a v6-centric solution.
You list several further "must not" that are not yet working group
agreements. Several of them look like good ideas. But it is a long
step from "good constraint if we can meet it" to "must not."
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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