sure, we shouldn't separate the solutions without a reason. What I was saying is that we shouldn't limit ourselves to solutions that fit both IPv4 and IPv6. Again, given that the solution space is different for IPv4 and IPv6, we might find that separate solutions are better.
Well since I believe the problem is the same for both, it is likely a single solution is probable.
Moreover, given that the solution space for IPv6 is larger than that for IPv4 -- perhaps even a true super-set --, making use of this
That is not clear at all. But I will say it could be easier to deploy a solution for IPv6 because 1) there is less of it deployed and 2) it could be deployed cleaner than what we have deployed for IPv4.
larger solution space by designing separate IPv4/v6 solutions will likely make the IPv6 solution better. This would help IPv6 getting deployed, not hinder it.
If you can have one scalability solution, then there is one thing for people to learn and one step to deploy, then both IPv4 and IPv6 can use it. Regardless if one or the other or both is deployed.
Dino -- 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