> -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> NIST's goal was probably, "some implementations on the field just > support static and maybe RIPng. We want to mandate something more > scalable, and OSPFv3 is as good an option as any". I completely agree. And, if the NIST Profile were directed at commodity router vendors, e.g. for enterprise networks of Govt agencies, there would be some logic in that. However, all IPv6 networks owned and operated by the Government are not that sort of network. This is similar to Alain Durand's point about cable modems, where you want the smallest possible memory footprint when supplying the needed services. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
