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

Re: draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.txt



Tony Hain wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > ...
> > > The requirement was met fine by the SL prefix; the only reason they
> > > still are ambiguous is because both Bob and I put our
> > drafts to remove
> > > ambiguity from SLs on the back burner due to the deprecation
> > > situation.
> >
> > Sure, at one level it doesn't matter whether the limited
> > addresses are FEC0:xxxx::/48 or as proposed in draft-hinden.
> > I think it's better for existing code to leave FEC0::/10
> > reserved and deprecated, but that's a secondary argument.
> 
> >From a software perspective the prefix doesn't matter. At some point the WG
> is going to have to decide if the costs (including the time delay) for
> changing any hardware that recognizes FEC0::/10 outweighs the perceived
> advantages of a 'clean' prefix, or not.

Please read carefully the exact text of the "deprecation" section
of the deprecation draft, which is coming very shortly (as requested
in Vienna). I think its phrasing addresses this point.

  Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------