A6 and IPv6 seem to fit together.
IPv8 and IPv16 only use AAAA.
Maybe the ICANN Board needs to "take this offline" ?
...in my opinion, ICANN can take all of IPv6 offline...
Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 10:57 AM
To: Jim Bound
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Draft Minutes for IPng Interim Meeting
> I challenge any notion of altering the long effort of A6
may i suggest that it might be more productive to discuss the engineering
need (or not) for it, and stick to principles not personalities?
e.g. in the absense of rapid renumbering and gse or other non-v4 routing,
what need is sufficiently important to justify a6? if there is none
currently, but one arises in the future (and i sure hope something does
arise for at least routing), then, if dns mechanisms are needed, appropriate
ones can be specified. and those could be a6, i can't prejudge.
in the meantime, it would be a real bummer if the current a6 spec, for which
there seems to be little documented actual need, was to prejudice designs
for critical problems such as routing because some interesting approach
would not work with a6.
randy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
