On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:41:02 -0800
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> >>>Or, to get this ID moving, remove both suggestions, and leave this
> >>>issue to be addressed somewhere else.
> >>
> >>In my personal view, this would be the best course for now. Later on it
> >>would be good to get feedback on how people deploy ULAs in operational
> >>networks. For example, this might be a good activity for v6ops.
> >>Actually, I would be surprised if there wasn't a lot of interest in
> >>tracking deployment and operational experience.
> >
> >I guess. It's a shame this point didn't come up during Last Call.
> >If we change something other than what the IESG asked us to change,
> >we are on the edge of a process problem. I though that lower-case
> >"suggested" was OK - it's much weaker than an official SHOULD, which
> >would certainly be a mistake for the reasons Mark gave.
>
> To clarify, I read Mark's text ("remove both suggestions") as "remove both
> of the suggestions he made in his email" and to not change the current
> text. Mark should verify this.
>
I was thinking, because of the conflicts, delete both the text
suggesting that subnet numbers would be shared between ULA and global
prefixes, and the suggestion for separate ULA /48 prefixes per IGP
domain or area. I'd think making no recommendation would be better than
making ones that may need to be clarified or contradicted at a later
date.
Regards,
Mark.
--
"This signature intentionally left blank."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
