Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6-01.txt

[Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>]

On 3 Oct 2007, at 22:03, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I would suggest making the reference to RFC 3964 more specific, e.g.
>
> 2.7.  6to4
>
>    2002::/16 are the 6to4 addresses [RFC4291][RFC3056].  The 6to4
>    addresses may be advertised when the site is running a 6to4  
> relay or
>    offering a 6to4 transit service.  However, the provider of this
>    service should be aware of the implications of running such
>    service[RFC3964], which includes some specific filtering rules for
>    6to4. IPv4 addresses disallowed in 6to4 prefixes are listed
>    in section 5.3.1 of [RFC3964].

	Good idea.  I think that works for me.  Specific indirect
	reference avoids the parallel-maintenance problem entrained
	by repetition.

	I'm also concerned about ugly pockets of ::/96 and
	::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 such as RFC1918 reservations.  Can they
	be covered by similar language.

> In reference to Joe's list, I think it's out of place to mention
> 14/8, but in any case, if the list is incomplete, we need to fix
> RFC 3964. Having a different list here would be confusing.

	If/when 3964 is fixed, won't the list here need fixing to
	synchronize.  Wouldn't it be good to find a short-cut?

	/Niall

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part