> I find this surprising. The decision to scrap TLA/NLA was taken > a long time ago, and in any case it's always been clear that > such boundaries were not architectural, but merely conventions > in the address assignment scheme.
I would say existence of thses conventions (I am talking about TLA) made incoming transition to v6 a way more feasible. > So any implementation that takes any notice of TLA/NLA was broken > anyway. The only boundary that > should affect code is the /64 boundary, which is why the paragraph > that Pekka cited is valuable. I suppose 125-bit LPM will significantly slow down acceptance of ipv6. I suppose that v6 will benefit from administrative steps setting limits on LPM, at least for transitional period. > > Brian > > Thanks, Aleksey -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
