Re: terminology (was: [16NG] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs)

2007-03-14 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
Basavaraj Patil wrote: Alex, On 3/14/07 12:52 PM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Basavaraj Patil wrote: On 3/14/07 12:04 PM, "ext James Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Basavaraj Patil writes: On 3/14/07 11:14 AM, "ext James Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tha

Re: terminology (was: [16NG] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs)

2007-03-14 Thread Basavaraj Patil
Alex, On 3/14/07 12:52 PM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basavaraj Patil wrote: >> >> On 3/14/07 12:04 PM, "ext James Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Basavaraj Patil writes: On 3/14/07 11:14 AM, "ext James Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That

Re: terminology (was: [16NG] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs)

2007-03-14 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
Basavaraj Patil wrote: On 3/14/07 12:04 PM, "ext James Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Basavaraj Patil writes: On 3/14/07 11:14 AM, "ext James Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That issue is the exclusive use of IPv4 or IPv6 on Packet CS. Why must it be exclusive? The first four bits