[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Wed Jun 23 13:10:54 CEST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-06-23, at 13.03, Masataka Ohta wrote: > >> Based on this it was proposed to concentrate on solutions that are >> either "fat-ip" or wedgelayers at layer "3.5". > > So, it is simply wrong. I am simply referring the conclusions of the interim meeting on the request of the WG co-chair. Values of this being right or wrong, or other comments on various proposals to the multi6 problem belong in the multi6 WG. Not here (which I am sure the WG chairs will agree with). - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQNllQaarNKXTPFCVEQIiTwCdGGiZVRjT5YA/LoyJU/H/+1KGVRYAoMWv OfxW6NYkpRMc66u8JunqmgL/ =1/8r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]