On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:43:10PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:32:00PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > > Yes, right now IPv6 deployment isn't good enough that we can't do this > without using all sorts of workarounds. OK, let's document those > workarounds and make them available to the attendees. If it means > that the IETF network provider has to hijack the root, then let them > hijack the root on the IETF network, and document that fact. If there > needs to be NAT-PT bridges to allow IETF'res to get back to their home > networks connected to ISP's that don't yet offer IPv6 connectivty, > then let there be NAT-PT bridges --- and document them. If various > Windows, Macintosh, and Linux laptops need special configuration so to > work around other problems, then document what the workarounds should > be, and give people early warning and access to them. > > - Ted as offical spokesmodel for the IETF in your role as Sgt at Arms, your you SURE you want to advocate the IETF abandon its published statement wrt there being ONE ROOT ... --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf