On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 00:30, Xavier Roche wrote: > >> You want to mention them, but mention that they've been shelved, > >> cite the RFC that explains why :) > >>Which one would that be? I can't find any particular RFC, or actual > > This one: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2474.txt?number=2474
That's definitely not it... > And its update: (August 2002) > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3364.txt?number=3364 But this was a rather interesting read. > See "Less Compelling Arguments in Favor of AAAA" and "Potential Problems with A6" >sections." See also Less "Compelling Arguments in Favor of A6" and the Main Advantages sections. > Recommendations based on these questions: > > (1) If the IPv6 working groups seriously intend to specify and deploy > rapid renumbering or GSE-like routing, we should transition to > using the A6 RR in the main tree and to using DNAME RRs as > necessary in the reverse tree. Agreed, given number (3). > (3) In either case, the reverse tree should use the textual > representation described in [RFC1886] rather than the bit label > representation described in [RFC2874]. _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
