Subject: RE: WG next steps

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:30:46 -0800

>> would likely give you back 0.05% anyway for
>> the very same reason.

> Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Why, do you think, the competitor have its own
> transit, even though there is a free one?
> Bandwidth limitation does not work.

Who talked about bandwidth limitation? I'm talking about a protocol that
uses geographical addresses for identifier/locator mapping purposes
only.

Michel.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:15:30 +0859 ()

Michel;

> Who talked about bandwidth limitation?

Then, how can you say it 0.05%?

You talked about bandwidth, not identifier/locator mapping.

> I'm talking about a protocol that

If you are saying that the geographical addresses can not be used
in real packets, they are not locators but identifiers.

Instead, if you are saying that the geographical addresses can be
used without such restriciton as bandwidth limitation for free
riders, they will be used 100% of the time.

							Masataka Ohta