Subject: RE: Thoughts on draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-04.txt

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:08:23 -0700

Here is what I propose so we don't bore this WG to death:

In Atlanta, both kre and I get a 5-minute slot to present.

Then we ask the following question to the floor:

"Let's imagine that the 'u' bit does not exist. Do we remove the parts
that mandate an address to be /64, or don't we".

If the floor says that we toss the /64 boundary, my vote goes to
suppress the 'u' bit so this can happen. If the floor says that we keep
the /64 boundary, then my vote goes to keep the 'u' bit for the time
being, as it does not harm anybody.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Markku Savela <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:24:19 +0300

> From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
> 

Not everyone can affort to travel there...

> being, as it does not harm anybody.

I say "toss the /64 boundary from the address architecture". Return it
back to original prefix=m, id=n bits format consistently.

The boundary is link specific thing and should be defined in
IPv6-over-FOO specs. Same with I any 'u'-bit like constructs.

Getting back to voting on these issues. Perhaps it should be that only
implementations should have a vote? :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:08:33 +0700

Date:        Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:24:19 +0300
    From:        Markku Savela <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | > In Atlanta, both kre and I get a 5-minute slot to present.
  | Not everyone can affort to travel there...

Which includes me, I won't be in Atlanta.

kre

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:20:36 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Markku Savela" <[email-masked]>
> back to original prefix=m, id=n bits format consistently.

1. Do you really think that people are going to want to place their hardware-specific ids
in the address fields ?

2. Have you considered the merits of placing "time-stamps" in the 128-bit DNS fields ?
....for the 4D Internet, where time becomes a dimension....

3. Have you considered how the 128-bit DNS is used with other protocols, besides IPv6 ?

4. What has the ICANN Board and staff decided on this ?...isn't there an ASO ?

5. Have you seen a 2 dimensional object ?...such as a shadow....length and width and no depth...
...are you familiar with 3D ?....length, width, and depth ?

6. Have you read the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott ?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=flatland

7. Have you spent much time learning about the Next Generation Internet ?
...3D and the governance structures...etc...
http://www.ActiveWorlds.com
http://www.OuterWorlds.com
http://www.cyboria.com

8. Do you think people are stupid ?...and will jump off the I* society cliff when told to jump...?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt