> From: "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Here is what I propose so we don't bore this WG to death: > > In Atlanta, both kre and I get a 5-minute slot to present.
Not everyone can affort to travel there... > If the floor says that we toss the /64 boundary, my vote goes to > suppress the 'u' bit so this can happen. If the floor says that we keep > the /64 boundary, then my vote goes to keep the 'u' bit for the time > being, as it does not harm anybody. I say "toss the /64 boundary from the address architecture". Return it back to original prefix=m, id=n bits format consistently. The boundary is link specific thing and should be defined in IPv6-over-FOO specs. Same with I any 'u'-bit like constructs. Getting back to voting on these issues. Perhaps it should be that only implementations should have a vote? :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
