IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv7 Selection Criteria

Scott_Brim@cornell.edu Mon, 21 December 1992 17:53 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15331; 21 Dec 92 12:53 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15325; 21 Dec 92 12:53 EST
Received: from babyoil.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06533; 21 Dec 92 12:56 EST
Received: from MITCHELL.CIT.CORNELL.EDU by ftp.com with SMTP id AA02493; Mon, 21 Dec 92 12:54:00 -0500
Received: from MITCHELL.CIT.CORNELL.EDU by mitchell.cit.cornell.edu (4.1/1.34/Honig-1.3) id AA11804; Mon, 21 Dec 92 12:53:40 EST
Message-Id: <9212211753.AA11804@mitchell.cit.cornell.edu>
To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, criteria@ftp.com, ericf@ftp.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Scott_Brim@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: IPv7 Selection Criteria
In-Reply-To: Frank Kastenholz's message of Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:24:39 -0500. <9212211624.AA28202@ftp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:53:39 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: swb@nr-tech.cit.cornell.edu

  >I think that this is important. There will always be pockets of IPv4
  >that never get upgraded for some reason or another and we have to be
  >concerned with these. They ought not be locked out of the Internet.

Right.  This is what I was trying to say before.  It's not just that we
have to tolerate these "pockets" (actually they're more like duffel
bags) -- the various IPv* plans must not deal with them in just a
transition plan, since the transition will never be finished.  The bags
have to be given more respect than that.  Ease of interoperability with
IPv4 (allowing for restricted capabilities) should be given higher
priority.  
							Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email