RE: (ngtrans) Update to Provider Independent addressing format drafts

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Editorial:
Interaction with routing.............Error! Bookmark not defined.


My $0.02 about it:
As an end customer, I don't find it as appealing as an IPv4 PI block.
There is something about IPv4 PI blocks that you kind of "own" the
address space. Large corporations that have (with or without a valid
reason) a tendency to geographically relocate would have to re-number.

Michel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@tndh.net] 
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 11:04 PM
To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org; nanog@merit.edu; ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com;
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com; tech@ipv6forum.com;
ipv6-directorate@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Subject: (ngtrans) Update to Provider Independent addressing format
drafts

The updates to the provider independent address format & usage drafts
are available at:
http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-fmt-01.txt
http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-01.txt

The usage document has been significantly reworked to address both
direct comments, as well as distillation of key issues from various mail
threads on nanog & multi6 lists. At this point comments should be
directed to the multi6 list.

Tony