2009/12/21 Christian Huitema <huit...@microsoft.com> > > If WKP(64:FF9B::/96) is the consensus, it better to state clearly that > WKP should not apply U/G requirements in the > > draft, right? > > The U/G bits in 64:FF9B::/96 are set to zero, so there is no need for an > exception. >
This is not an exception. This is a right way to compatible with RFC4291. There are no restrains to set U/G bits in 64:FF9B::/96 to zero. We even could set U/G bit to 1, as long as WKP maintains checksum neutral. > > > How about this: "When using a /96 prefix, except the WKP that start with > the binary > > value 000, the administrators MUST ensure that the bits 64 to 71 are set > to zero." > > Except this requirement applies to "administrators", who cannot > legitimately obtain a prefix in ::/8. These prefixes can only be defined by > IETF action. > Does this requirement only apply to the NSP that administrators can legitimately obtain ? --Gang > > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
