Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from murder ([unix socket])
	 by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Cyrus v2.2.8-Mandrake-RPM-2.2.8-4.2.101mdk) with LMTPA;
	 Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:21:08 +0200
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC4861B7A
	for <harald@alvestrand.no>; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:21:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 14586-04 for <harald@alvestrand.no>;
 Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:21:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.4.8
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9B661B4C
	for <harald@alvestrand.no>; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:20:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1DvK3U-00068F-1x; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:16:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvEUn-00089z-Ea
	for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:20:21 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13960
	for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvEyc-0001WM-Lk
	for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:51:11 -0400
Received: from i03m-212-195-148-209.d4.club-internet.fr ([212.195.148.209]
	helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DvEUj-0005ZR-Qm; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:20:18 -0700
Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050720150709.04dd5cf0@mail.jefsey.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:19:58 +0200
To: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0507201211270.27452@chandra.student.uit.no>
References: <EF40C42ACAB7A649B2EAE70C19B6CD6E037C3AD9@xch-ne-02.ne.nos.boein
	g.com> <42DDF00C.90807@zurich.ibm.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050720112926.03f043d0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.56.0507201211270.27452@chandra.student.uit.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
	please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:16:29 -0400
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, global-v6@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: 
 I-DACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,
	<mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,
	<mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at alvestrand.no

At 12:21 20/07/2005, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
><snip>
> >
> > Up to now, what has been investigated is what IPv6 can bring to the
> > network. I think another interesting approach is to start from a universal
> > numbering space and investigate what IPv6 could bring to it (with the
> > current technology or not) and to all its constituents. May be the way to
> > understand how to deploy IPv6 faster instead of selling it slowly?
>
>This is a completly different discussion and IPv6 is just one of many
>tools available. Problem is, are no use in trying to create lots of funky
>services if the communication wont work...  and no one (almost) want to
>use time and money on getting the communication to work without a service
>using it.

I am not sure I understand your comment. I am talking of IPv6 support of 
the universal numbering space, not of other tools. Problem IMHO is to 
understand where regidity is useful and where it impeaches solutions people 
would need to put your time and money into? I am always against exclusive 
and exclusion, whatever their good reasons, when this is possible. All the 
more in techniics and innovation. Just says that.

I see advantages in having /48 /56 /64 etc. thresholds in rates. Not really 
in technics. But I certainly see the technical con/pros why to use these 
threeshold, the same I see advantages in /128 and in InterfaceID Grids.

Or did I misread your comment?
Thank you.
jfc


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------