hI, Eliot, On 04/13/2012 10:09 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > At one point you write that the intent is to replace EUI-64-based > addresses (Section 5).
Exactly. > But that doesn't seem to jibe with what you > write in the intro about RFC-4941. Could you please cite the "conflicting" text? > I am concerned that adopting this > mechanism will make matters worse if this mechanism is being used as an > alternative to CGAs, as opposed to EUI-64s.. I don't follow. Could you clarify your concern? Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
