Christian Huitema escribió:
It seems ok to redefine the specification once the constraint on
IPv4-embeded IPv6 addresses has been removed, just as what we are now doing
on SIIT. (E.g., replacing the IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address and IPv4-Mapped
IPv6 Address with IPv4-translatable IPv6 address and IPv4-converted IPv6
address respectively).
Any revision of the IPv6 addressing rules in 6MAN is going to take a long time.
Maybe several years. I would rather not wait that long before we publish the
addressing format document. Beside, complying with the rule is not that hard.
So why bother?
fully agree.
We have discussed this issue before.
The conclusion in behave was AFAICT: " go to 6man, disucss there and we
will do whatever 6man decides"
So far, AFAIU, 6man has not updated the IPv6 address architecture, so
the reasonable thing to do in behave is to honour the current address
architecture.
Regards, marcelo
-- Christian Huitema
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
