nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv8 < IPv6

From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 16:05:46 -0500

At 02:19 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:


 Accordingly, not allocating in a geographic fashion lends to
 deaggregation, which is bad.


Correction: Not allocating in a topological fashion lends to
deaggregation. Geography often has nothing to do with it.

- paul

Current thread:

IPv8 < IPv6 Jim Fleming (Nov 05)
- Message not available
  - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 05)
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 05)
    - Message not available
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 05)
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 05)
    - Message not available
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 06)
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Richard Irving (Nov 06)
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
    - Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
    - Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6] Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
    - Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6] Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
    - Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6] Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Bradley Reynolds (Nov 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: IPv8 < IPv6 Rodney Joffe (Nov 06)
- RE: IPv8 < IPv6 Jim Fleming (Nov 11)