Re: [RRG] Moving forward... IPv4 now, IPv6 less urgent and perhaps more ambitious

["William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> wrote:
> I understand the current draft text is:
>
>> 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.
>
> I oppose this because it would allow the RRG not to recommend a
> solution for IPv4.


For what it's worth, I agree with Robin. The identified problem is:
find a way to drastically reduce the $8000/year cost of each IPv4
prefix in the core. Shifting focus to IPv6 abandons the problem.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

--
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