Brian / Kurtis, >>> Michel Py wrote: >>> This is why I used the term "gambling" before. What you are >>> lobbying for is to say that it is OK to give away PI and >>> create the IPv6 swamp
>> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: >> yes. > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I disagree. If our goal (as it should be) is a 10 billion > node network (at least) then the risks in allowing even the > beginning of a swamp are too great. I could not agree more with Brian. Something between 1+ billion sites, 10+ billion nodes is the minimum target. Kurtis, IPv6 is *not* IPv4 with more bits. If we wanted to do this, we would have made it 64 bits, say "everything's the same except the address is longer" and we would be done by now. This WG used to be called "IPNG", for "Next Generation". This is what we are talking about here, a new generation, not IPv4 on steroids. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
