Tim / Margaret, > Tim Hartrick wrote: > If we are seriously considering doing PI allocations then > we should probably start the process of collecting > proposals for how to make it scale.
This is the semantics police speaking: PI = Does *NOT* scale. Tim, I don't doubt your intentions, but please don't call it scalable PI. There is no such thing. Please call it GAPI, GUPI, xxPI but not PI. > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > This is the crux of why I believe that we will need to find a > way to return to stable, provider-independent, globally-routable > addresses to avoid NAT in IPv6. Same here. I did not comment on this before, but I think that what Margaret really means here is: > This is the crux of why I believe that we will need to find a | > way to return to **A SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES THE PERKS OF** stable, > provider-independent, globally-routable addresses to avoid NAT > in IPv6. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
