re: Status of IPng
Keith Sklower <sklower@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu> Tue, 19 July 1994 02:39 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18328; 18 Jul 94 22:39 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18324; 18 Jul 94 22:39 EDT
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26133; 18 Jul 94 22:39 EDT
Received: from noc-gw.lanl.gov by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.6.8.1/1.2) id UAA00448; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 20:37:49 -0600
Received: by noc-gw.lanl.gov (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1) id UAA29740; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 20:37:39 -0600
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov by noc-gw.lanl.gov (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1) id UAA29737; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 20:37:38 -0600
Received: from vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.6.8.1/1.2) id UAA00437; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 20:37:41 -0600
Received: (from sklower@localhost) by vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9.Beta4/8.6.9.Beta0) id TAA14548 for tuba@lanl.gov; Mon, 18 Jul 1994 19:34:03 -0700
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 19:34:03 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Keith Sklower <sklower@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-Id: <199407190234.TAA14548@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: tuba@lanl.gov
Subject: re: Status of IPng
Mark Knopper writes: The IPng directorate has decided to recommend SIPP 16 as a starting point for IPng. Well, that was accomplished with remarkably little hoopla. What does that say about TUBA? Would anybody in the IESG support the notion that even though CLNP is not the fair-haired child of IPv4, that there is still value in improving CLNP to the point where it can carry any traffic that the other IP can, and that this work may occur in the IETF?
- Status of IPng Mark Knopper
- re: Status of IPng Keith Sklower
- Re: Status of IPng Mark Knopper
- Re: Status of IPng Peter S. Ford