On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:54:41 +0200 "EricLKlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you explain why are we allocating another range for locally assigned > prefixes, rather than reusing the FEC8:; FEC9:: spaces that were used this > way and are now going to stay unallocated? Why tie up a second range? Because code may exist that assumes the probably soon-to-be-former SL functionality. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
