Re: Why IPv6 is a must?

To: Steve Deering <deering at cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
From: Eric Rosen <erosen at cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:36:13 -0500
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:58:04 -0800. <v04220800b82b68ef9eca@[10.19.238.144]>
Reply-to: erosen at cisco.com
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org
User-agent: EMH/1.10.0 WEMI/1.13.2 (Mochimune) FLIM/1.12.1 (Nishinokyō) Emacs/21.1 (sparc-sun-solaris2.6) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

Sure, in  theory one could add  zillions of new  globally routable addresses
without increasing the  size of the routing tables  in the default-free zone
at all. 

The skepticism is about whether there is (or even could be) a realistic plan
to make this happen.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
  - From: Steve Deering
- Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
  - From: Meritt James

References:
- Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
  - From: Steve Deering

Prev by Date: No news [Re: Why IPv6 is a must?]
Next by Date: Re: trying to reconcile two threads
Previous by thread: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
Next by thread: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Why IPv6 is a must?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.