Re: minor point

huston@ps73.ako.dec.com Mon, 28 December 1992 15:55 UTC

Message-Id: <9212281550.AA20985@ps73.ako.dec.com>
To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: dee@skidrow.ljo.dec.com, Evaluating the Next Generation <criteria@ftp.com>
Subject: Re: minor point
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Dec 92 10:40:35 EST." <9212281540.AA22929@ftp.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:50:15 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: huston@ps73.ako.dec.com

Frank,

>I am not sure that this is necessary. I do not believe that everyone will
>change to IPv7 all at once. It would be a gradual process and you would
>apply for your IPv7 address when you want to change over.
>
> > Possibly a sub-item under ease of administration or the like: as
> > mandated in the IAB draft, any IPv7 address scheme needs to have all
> > of the IPv4 address space embedded in it so everyone does't have to
> > apply for new numbers all at once.

I can't speak for Donald, but when I first read his message, it seemed
like he was saying that a system running IPv7 needs to be able to directly
address an IPv4 system.  Because everyone will not change to IPv7 at once,
or maybe ever, the point you reinforced in your reply.

I would agree with this point as well.


Steve Huston
huston@ps73.ako.dec.com
On contract to, but not speaking for, Digital Equipment Corporation

minor point Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)
Re: minor point Frank Kastenholz
Re: minor point huston
Re: minor point Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)
Re: minor point Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)
Re: minor point Frank Kastenholz
Re: minor point Paul Tsuchiya