Re: [RRG] Moving forward...

[Dan Jen <jenster@cs.ucla.edu>]

Just out of curiosity...

I understand that we are thinking of a solution that works for the long
term.  So if someone comes up with a solution that isn't compatible with
ipv6, yet appears to be a long-term solution to the scalability problem,
why would we want to reject this?

I'm guessing we just want to have some constraints so that conversations
don't fly all over the place.  That's understandable, and I would
support that.


Dan Jen

On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 09:45 -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> 	
> In attempt to make some forward progress, I would like to see if we can rea=
> ch rough consensus on the following.  Yes, I realize that it's a small topi=
> c, but hopefully we can gain some momentum if we start be agreeing on easie=
> r issues.
> 
> 
> Our recommended solution should be applicable to IPv6.  It may also apply t=
> o IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path forward for IPv6.
> 
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> --
> 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


--
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