This draft follows from the comments I made at the mike during Christian Vogt's presentation on 3/14 and also here on the list:
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg00780.html http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg00781.html The idea is that if a sufficiently large IPv6 prefix is reserved for use as EID space, then a simple transition is possible since it can be known whether an EID resides behind an ETR simply by examining the prefix. (Plus, the legacy IPv6 deployments never have to renumber.) My comment to the draft authors is that the request for a /16 may be overly conservative; why not ask for something more like a /8, /10, etc. (or even more) to reduce fragmentation of the IPv6 address space. To Christian Vogt, my comments did not show up on your meeting minutes, which is understandable because you were presenting at the time. Maybe update the minutes if you get a chance. Thanks - Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
