On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Alain Durand wrote: > >3.0 IANA Considerations > > > > The following prefix is reserved for use in documentation and MUST > > NOT be assigned to any operational IPv6 nodes: > > > > 2000:0001::/32 > > > >==> I do not understand why this reservation has been made; I see zero > >technical reason for it -- and it would prevent the use of the full > >2000::/16 for something else. > > > > I disagree.
Hopefully disagree only on some issues I raised. > Having the reserved prefix is a good think and > will hopefully prevent what happen when Sun folks started > documenting examples using our address space. I totally agree with you..! > Having this prefix defined in a separated document was attempted > about 2 years ago (remember Marc Blanchet's document? He was > the first one to point out the need for this) and did not go anywhere. Yes, I remember -- and locally use them. I wonder what got out of that; in any case, allocation out of 3ffe::/16 is an idea that would never fly today. > As most people will use addresses within 2000::/3, it makes sense > to reserve the documentation prefix from that space Totally agree here. > and this > documents seems to me the perfect place to do so. No, this document is meant to move the old obsolete RFC into historic. This is not the right place to add features, IMO. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
