RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

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

 



That RFC describes motivations for /64 that are mostly superseded. I still think we need to wean ourselves of the quasi-stateful address notion, in IPv6, at least for the remaining majority of the address space.

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 03:24
To: Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@xxxxxxxx>; IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; 6man-chairs@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Dear Randy,

>> If your statement is that we only have the 64 bit boundary because of
>> SLAAC I believe you are wrong.
> 
> cite, please.  what else actually needs it?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421

Best regards,
Ole





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]