Hi, On 2010/10/27, at 11:31, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi, > > I think this draft is looking good. A couple of points: > >> 2.1.3. Deprecated addresses in the policy table >> >> IPv4-compatible IPv6 address is deprecated. [RFC4291] IPv6 site- >> local unicast address is deprecated. [RFC3879] Moreover, 6bone >> testing address was [RFC3701] The issue is how we treat these >> outdated addresses. > > The sentence about 6bone is incomplete. I think the answer for 6bone > is that 3ffe::/16 is just another reserved unicast prefix now, but it > may be allocated one day. So why list it at all? It's just part of > 2000::/3 now. > > The only exception might be 3ffe:831f::/32. That was used as an > experimental Teredo prefix, so it might be wise to list it with low > precedence. But even that could cause a problem many years from now, > when 3ffe::/16 is assigned as unicast space. > > For the other deprecated addresses, listing them with low precedence > seems correct. Thank you for your comment. Considering the nature of the default address selection policy, it is hard to be updated, and it takes time to do that even revising the RFC. So, I agree that the temporary situation should not be reflected on the default address selection policy. In that sense, 3ffe::/16 and 3ffe:831f::/32 should not be specially treated. > >> 5.1. Normative References > > It seems to me that very few of the references are actually normative. > Most of them should be moved to "Informative". Could you please tell me which ones do you think should be kept ? -- Arifumi Matsumoto NGN System Architecture Project NTT Service Integration Laboratories E-mail: arif...@nttv6.net TEL +81-422-59-3334 FAX +81-422-59-6364 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
