Remi, >>>> I believe that the original question really was "whether it makes >>>> sense to reserve an unused IID range for 4rd". >>> >>> A 4rd reserved range, for 4rd activation to never require IPv6 >>> renumbering, has been for long in the specification studied in >>> Softwire. >> >> But my understanding is that softwires didn't adopt 4rd? > > 4rd is adopted (on experimental track) under the only condition that 6man > confirms that it doesn't conflict with the IPv6 addressing architecture.
that of course doesn't mean that softwire will not publish 4rd if the authors were to accept the advice from 6man. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
