RE: [RRG] Moving forward...

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>

    > if you think that [IPv6] will remove the state*rate problem we are
    > developing, I believe you are being overly optimistic.

Yes, this is the important point. People's desire for non-DNS permanent
identifiers - aka PI space - means that the crippled IPv4/6 architecture is
going to have a permanent rate*state problem as the network grows. Since IPv4
and IPv6 are so similar, the same problems will occur in both, and the same
solution (in terms of the basic design and engineering) will work for both.

    > From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>

    > Note that trying to do this without solving the architectural probloems
    > will merely result in v6 continuing to be ignored. Or worse, v6
    > becoming an even worse case of the problems we have with v4.

If I understand what you're alluding to here, I think you're basically
agreeing with what I said above?

    > From: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>

    > Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6. It may or may not also
    > apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path forward for IPv6.

Sure, but if it doesn't work for IPv4, is it going to have much uptake/use?

	Noel

--
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