In your previous mail you wrote:
> One of the original reason that i-mode didnt go pure IP is they couldnt
> get enough IP address for it (they designed i-mode to handle 6M users
> originally) and that is quite huge for APNIC.
IPv6 has been around for quite some time now, do you know what plans they
have to utilise this?
=> according to a IPv6 Forum internal mail:
NTTDoCoMo confirmed that IPv6 will be used in their backbone
starting Jan 2001 in a panel session with Fujitsu and the IPv6 Forum
at WTC.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: imode far superior to wap M�ns Nilsson
- Re: imode far superior to wap Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: imode far superior to wap Dave Crocker
- end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far supe... James P. Salsman
- Re: imode far superior to wap James Seng
- Re: imode far superior to wap Renfield Kuroda
- Re: imode far superior to wap John Stracke
- Re: imode far superior to wap Masataka Ohta
- Re: imode far superior to w... John Stracke
- Re: imode far superior to wap Steven Cotton
- Re: imode far superior to wap Francis Dupont
- Re: imode far superior to wap Masataka Ohta
- Re: imode far superior to wap Masataka Ohta
- Re: imode far superior to wap M�ns Nilsson
- Re: imode far superior to wap Masataka Ohta
- Re: imode far superior to wap James P. Salsman
- RE: imode far superior to wap Brijesh Kumar
- RE: imode far superior to wap John Day
- Re: imode far superior to wap George Michaelson
- RE: imode far superior to wap Shaw, Robert
- RE: imode far superior to wap Barathy, RamaSubramaniam
