[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Kurt Erik Lindqvist;
>>Application may use UDP with its own timeout.
> So all UDP applications need to modified (or not used at multihomed
If there is a family of UDP applications sharing the same
idea on "connection", there can be a set of connection
management library functions shared by the applications.
Then, it may be that only the library may be modified.
> This is a discussion that doesn't belong here, but it's not the role of
> the WG chairs to control the WG.
Then, it was your mistake that you controlled the WG to forbid
presentations of proposals.
> Make a bidding round for the TLI roles? So you want an open market for
> default-free address space?
Read the draft for an example. It does not say "open".
> So Yahoo would qualify as a TLI? If they won a TLI assignment in the
> bidding round? While for example NTT might not?
Read the draft.
>>I do recognize the policies and says them orthogonal.
> Well, the bidding for address space has a large chance to off-set the
> financial models of the Internet today.
As explained in my presentation, it does not.
> Why would customers go to NLIs in the first place? I for one would only
> by service from TLIs.
It is you who are ignoring the reality.
Why do customers today buy service from tier2 providers?