On Jun 18, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Vince Fuller wrote:
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:05:03 -0700 From: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com> To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Cc: 'rrg' <rrg@psgcom> Subject: Re: [RRG] Moving forward...Last week we did a consensus check on the following: |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.It's my judgement that we have rough consensus on this. There is dissent,notably from Robin and Bill, but overall, it seems that we have rough consensus.FWIW, put me into the more-rough, non-consensus camp that thinks providing asolution for IPv4 is a requirement. Speaking for myself only. --Vince
You are not in the non-consensus camp :-)I had some private exchange with Tony on this issue, but let me put it in public to help the consensus gathering: I agree that the solution must work for IPv6, but at the same time,
- IPv4/v6 share the same architecture; the only major fundamental difference is their address space size. - my notion of the RRG task is to develop an architectural solution to routing scalability. - We should step up a level from looking specific versions of IP at this stage of solution development. Our solution has to be an architectural change, and should work for either version. Lixia -- 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