On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Dino Farinacci<d...@cisco.com> wrote: > Because we want to make all combinations work. Because we want IPv6 to be > real. > > Why move it to another draft when the same contention will occur. > > The opponents just have to face the music. And if they are going to take > issue with this, what about the bigger more critical issues? Will those take > decades to resolve? Don't we have a deployment deadline for IPv6?
yes, ~5-7yrs before ipv4 free-pool run-out... wait that was 4-6 years ago. > On Jul 30, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> >>> From: Lars Eggert <lars.egg...@nokia.com> >> >>> Alternatively, you could pick a different encapsulation >> >> Dino, why don't we just drop the 'inside IPv6' encapsulations from the >> spec? >> I.e. keep only IPv4 in IPv4 and IPv6 in IPv4? The IPv6 encapsulations >> could be >> documented in a short non-IETF note that's posted on a personal web page >> somewhere. (I'm assuming here that there are a few ISPs who'd actually >> want to >> run inside IPv6, otherwise we could just drop them entirely.) >> >> Noel >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> l...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > l...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
