Re: Why is this thread alive? (was RE: Why IPv6 is a must?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why is this thread alive? (was RE: Why IPv6 is a must?)

To: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: Why is this thread alive? (was RE: Why IPv6 is a must?)
From: grenville armitage <gja at ureach.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:14:09 -0800
References: <8D25F244B8274141B5D313CA4823F39C0235D56F@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

Ian King wrote:
	[..]
> If folks must continue these tired old
> arguments, can this please be moved to an IPv6 forum and/or to a NAT
> forum?

Judging from the new names I see chiming in, not all the pros and cons
are
old news to everyone on this list. An education is occuring for people
who've joined ietf at ietf.org since the last time the topic was thrashed.
Hardly a bad thing.

cheers,
gja

References:
- Why is this thread alive? (was RE: Why IPv6 is a must?)
  - From: Ian King

Prev by Date: Re: Why is this thread alive? (was RE: Why IPv6 is a must?)
Next by Date: ipngwg, please stop the insanity
Previous by thread: Re: Why is this thread alive? (was RE: Why IPv6 is a must?)
Next by thread: ipngwg, please stop the insanity
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.

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