Re: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Brian,

I don't think the /48 bus has left ... May be you can explain the reason/s
why you think so ?

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
> Organización: IBM
> Responder a: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Fecha: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:49:22 +0200
> Para: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> CC: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Asunto: Re: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
> 
> ...
>> 
>> It is not clear to me why the arguments for a fixed boundary have been
>> removed.  I accept that there is no IETF architectural issue whether the
>> size is /48, /56 or whatever,
> 
> Having had a lot to do with the text of 3177, I have been reluctantly
> forced to the conclusion that those arguments have been overtaken by
> events. I think the drafts explains why, too. And the draft doesn't
> need to explain why its arguments are somewhat vague instead of being
> firm recommmendations - it really isn't in the IETF's scope to
> make such recommendations, now that the IPv6 unicast space is being
> administered by the RIRs.
> 
> I'm personally sorry to see /48 not applied universally but that bus
> has left.
> 
>       Brian
> 
> 
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.