Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 2005-03-17, at 15.02, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > > > > Kurtis Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Shouldn't we be a bit more explicit on what routers/hosts should do > > >> with > > >> these addresses when found? > > > > > > We're already allowing for multiple behaviours. Being more explicit > > > (about what those behaviours are) could be more confusing than helpful. > > > > But the behaviour when receiving a deprecated address might be better > > off being consistent? > > Presumably, yes. > But it's too late to require that anyway.
Eric Gray has made me aware that I was addressing a different point than I was following up to. I apologize and will respond to what was actually asked... There is no reason to require different treatment for these addresses than for the rest of the IETF space. It would not be harmful to treat them as "Martian" addresses and require them to be silently dropped all the time, but doing so would not actually help anything either. As I see it, the reason to deprecate these addresses is to make the spec simpler, not more complicated. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
