On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Robin Whittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand the current draft text is: > >> 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. > > I oppose this because it would allow the RRG not to recommend a > solution for IPv4.
For what it's worth, I agree with Robin. The identified problem is: find a way to drastically reduce the $8000/year cost of each IPv4 prefix in the core. Shifting focus to IPv6 abandons the problem. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
