On 2011-03-03 11:23, Scott W Brim wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 17:10, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com >> wrote: > >> BTW there is also the issue of interaction with ILNP, which >> has been recommended to the IETF by the RRG chairs. >> > > ILNP is barely experimental, its probability of being widely deployed is > totally unknown, and in any case sites that want to run ILNP MAY adhere to a > 64-bit minimum themselves without making that even a SHOULD for everyone.
That's all certainly true. However, the idea that we might have one set of sites running ILNP and another set of sites running >64 bit prefixes seems like Balkanization to me, even though it may not strictly speaking cause interoperability failures. In any case my point is that it should be mentioned in the draft, like the Firewire issue. I'd rather get IPv6 deployed in a uniform way first. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
