On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: I don't rule out anything. I state that the bits should be there so that automated topologies can be made to function in an arbitrary plug-and-play environment. If it can be used for other purposes, that's fine, but I do not suggest that we should support those other purposes officially. OTOH, because of the first use case that I do feel we should continue to support officially, I do not support stealing those bits from the end user for the purposes of ISP semantic addressing.
So even though we have solutions to allocate prefixes efficiently in arbitrary home network topologies, and even though these solutions are just as easy to deploy as the solution that wastes addresses, and even though they provide better reliability than the wasteful solution, you use the nonexistent lack of such mechanisms as justification for a position you are taking in an argument. Why are you wasting two working groups' time continuing to assert this argument on that basis?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
