On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:27:27 +0900 Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > >> The IPv6 standards community can of course continue to pretend a > >> belief in universal 64 bit IIDs - thus ensuring that they are out of > >> touch with IPv6 reality... > > > > Maybe that's your reality, but it isn't everybody's. > > as you demonstrate so clearly > > but those of us who are operators
Why do you assume I'm not? > and actually use routers So that's what they call those things I keep configuring to forward packets. Thanks for the tip. > and actually > use /127s etc. kinda like the reality we're experiencing and will play > whack-a-vendor to keep it if we need to > And all you'll end up with is IPv4 with bigger addresses. You really should catch up with the useful features of protocols that were designed in the late 80s / early 90s, like IPX, Appletalk, DECNet and CLNS. > steinar's point is that this draft attempts to codify the operational > reality in the normal way such is done in the ietf > I think the normal way is also to make sure the RFCs can be used to implement protocols, and can also be used as authoritative references on how devices that claim compliance with them should behave. That's what I use them for when lodging bugs with vendors, or providing feedback to vendors on IPv6 functionality, as I'm doing now with a couple of CPE vendors. > it's really pretty simple > Rarely is anything simple. > randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
