Hi Robin, Sorry for the delay, but I had to dig pretty deep to find this:
>Fred Templin disagreed with your text, wanting IPv4 and IPv6 >solutions. I don't disagree with what Tony said, however, there is quite a bit left to consider in what he _didn't_ say. Tony didn't say, for example, that we can expect the existing global IPv4 deployment to be decommissioned in the coming N years (for any value of N). He also did not say that IPv4 will have no roll to play in the IPv6 routing scaling solution. In my perfect world, we would roll out the big iron to flat-route the global IPv4 address space, while at the same time we map-and-encaps the dickens out of IPv6. The existing IPv4 services would then remain highly available while new services are rolled out using IPv6 and w/o thrashing the routing system. IPv6/IPv4 map-and-encaps would support this, but IPv6/SEAL/IPv4 map-and-encaps would be much better (and also much better than IPv6/IPv6). Thanks - Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
