Comments on IPng choice

[[e-mail]]

We are surprised about the content of the message announcing the 
16 bytes SIPP for IPng.

The message doesn't contain any information proving or demonstrating
a comparison between the proposals, nor the description of the
criteria followed for the selection.

We also have been astonished at the vague discussion about the address
lenght. The lenght of the address is quite easy to choose, 16byte seems to us  
the minimum reasonable lenght for the future 'Big Internet'. 
But, at this point 16, 17, or 20 bytes, does make big difference?.

On the other side, for example, we didn't see any comparison between the 
different proposals about the  addressing capability  to offer important 
functionalities like routing aggregation and topological flexibility
and administrative decentralization.

Could anyone shed light upon the SIPP 16 choice?

Best Regards,

 Antonia Ghiselli 
 Cristina Vistoli

 National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Italy