Re: Comments on IPng choice
Jon Crowcroft <J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Fri, 22 July 1994 14:37 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08707; 22 Jul 94 10:37 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08703; 22 Jul 94 10:37 EDT
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08207; 22 Jul 94 10:36 EDT
Received: from noc-gw.lanl.gov by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.6.8.1/1.2) id IAA17578; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 08:31:30 -0600
Received: by noc-gw.lanl.gov (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1) id IAA09692; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 08:31:24 -0600
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov by noc-gw.lanl.gov (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1) id IAA09689; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 08:31:23 -0600
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.6.8.1/1.2) id IAA17542; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 08:31:17 -0600
Received: from shrew.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.16472-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 15:30:30 +0100
To: GHISELLI@infn.it
cc: tuba@lanl.gov, big-interne@munnari.oz.au, hep-clns@frcpn11.in2p3.fr
Subject: Re: Comments on IPng choice
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Jul 94 15:56:51 +0100." <940722155651.2080009d@infn.it>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 15:30:29 +0100
Message-ID: <1467.774887429@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jon Crowcroft <J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
>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. I stood up at the last IETF and spoke in plenary, and a BOF about Craig & Frank's document that has been announced on this list and the IETF one, for a long time, which _explicitly lists_ the criteria draft-kastenholz-ipng-criteria-02.txt is a current version, but the criteria have been public for a long time. >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?. at the BOF, we asked if anyone had input. There was little extra input then in this area (other things such as security and audo-configuration were copiously extended) [i put it to you that a non multiple of 4 or 8 would be irresponsible given modern computers, but that is irrelevant] >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. read the internet drafts about the schemes for all these things for TUBA and SIPP..... >Could anyone shed light upon the SIPP 16 choice? i cannot, because i thought SIPP-Classic (8 byte, plus 8 byte extensions), was preferable, however, the IPng Area Directors no doubt explain will next week in Toronto. jon ....it starts....
- Comments on IPng choice GHISELLI
- Re: Comments on IPng choice Jon Crowcroft
- Re: Comments on IPng choice GHISELLI
- Re: Comments on IPng choice Dave Crocker
- Re: Comments on IPng choice Peter S. Ford