This was a comment strictly based on what I understood from the thread in this conversation, the /48 was based on the IANA implementation. This is how I understood the lines: > My perception is that the /48 "border" is inside the IANA > delegation.
But apparently I am mixing up two diffrent e-mail chains,in the other one there was a comment by you: > In other words: documenting APNIC policy is nice, APNIC deserves kudos > for assigning a /32 to the purpose of documentation prefixes, and your > draft should, if possible, go further than what is already there but > ship as-is if nothing new is on the horizon. I am sorry but I seem to have gotten my messages mixed. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "EricLKlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:17 AM Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.txt > EricLKlein wrote: > IANA implementation IANA "implementation"? What does this mean? Can you give an example of something that the IANA has implemented? Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
