Subject: (ngtrans) "...can be solved if we can only find another way to provide multiple routes..."

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:02:02 -0600

"...can be solved if we can only find another way to provide multiple
routes..."

IPv8 Addressing with IPv6 solves this.

Do you use a 2002:<IPv4>:0000 prefix ?

http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html

Jim Fleming
Why Gamble on a .BIZ Lottery? Start a Real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

Re: Why is IPv6 a must?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

To: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Why is IPv6 a must?
From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 08:19:34 -0500
cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:14:17 PST."
<[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> Your message is generally well put.  However, while it is possible to send
> the packets on the wire, the fundamental underlying scaling point, the
> routing system, has not been properly addressed.  Perhaps a solution can
be
> retrofitted in, but then again, who knows?  This, I thought, was <largely>
> the point of multi6.

seems a bit of a stretch to claim that the routing scalability problem
can be solved if we can only find another way to provide multiple routes
to a destination network.

Keith