Geoff,
[cable-modems] was a scenario that was envisaged by the authors of the draft as being consistent with the intended re-designated use and consistent with the caveats noted in the draft.
For a closed system, which is what you are talking about, one could make CLNS and TMIP work!! If you can do that, why not simply use the specified standard, IPv6? Doing otherwise discredits CableLabs and probably causes a CM respin.
The authors were interested in providing a succinct statement of the administrative actions required to redefine the use of this currently reserved address block.
That is necessary but NOT sufficient. There needs to be motivation. This was the case in RFCs 1597 and 1918, and it should be so here as well. You are asking for the last allocation of addresses. Let's have the reasoning be sound, please.
It would be quite appropriate, as already noted in the draft, to generate additional material describing use cases and actions required on the part of network admins to enable use of this address prefix in various scenarios.
That's fine, but without the motivation I would strongly object to this document advancing.
Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
