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

pTLA request for MICROSOFT - review closes 2 January 2002

Hash: SHA1

I agree. I am not a Microsoft fan myself, but I cannot see how them
having more address space would enable them to develop more (or less)
"incompatible protocols". As has been said, it is quite possible to
filter their routes if they misbehave.

If Microsoft wants to design incompatible protocols to be used over
IPv6, they can do that with or without having a pTLA on 6bone. I
haven't had any problems with pTLA applicants before and I don't have
any problems with them either.

Michael Kjörling

On Dec 18 2001 11:11 -0000, Mike Knell wrote:

> > > > MICROSOFT has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review period for this
> > > > will close 2 January 2002. Please send your comments to me or the list.
> (snip)
> > The very least that 6bone can do is have Microsoft agree to such terms in
> > writing. As a NetBSD developer, I do not want to see our work become
> > irrelevant should Microsoft start making incompatible protocols.
> Microsoft have had a presence on the 6bone for a long time, and I fail to
> see (not that, I must confess, I'm that active in v6 stuff at the moment
> after moving jobs) how granting them a block of address space should somehow
> be seen as giving Microsoft carte blanche to "develop incompatible protocols".
> Can we try and be realistic here?
> Mike

- -- 
Michael Kjörling  --  Programmer/Network administrator  ^..^
Internet: [email protected] -- FidoNet: 2:204/254.4   \/
PGP: 95f1 074d 336d f8f0 f297 6a5b 2aa3 7bfd 8a70 e33e

"There is something to be said about not trying to be glamorous
and popular and cool. Just be real -- and life will be real."
(Joyce Sequichie Hifler, September 13 2001, www.hifler.com)

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Public key is at http://michael.kjorling.com/contact/pgp.html