Earlier, Patrick Frejborg wrote: > So I claim that hIPv4 is providing a new routing architecture - > it is either not a CES or a CEE - it is something else.
I don't find the "CES" or "CEE" terms to be very meaningful, in that they don't really inform one about the important properties of any proposal. Just as Patrik disagrees with how HIPv4 has been characterised, I don't really agree with how ILNP has been characterised. I don't see the value in trying to continue use of those terms within the Routing RG context. Probably best if we all just move on, and keep trying to find meaningful ways to characterise the various ideas floating within the RG. Yours, Ran Atkinson _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
