FEC0::/10 or /48?
Hi! I think my question is best answered in this mailing list. When I read books about IPv6, they mention always an 48bit prefix for SL addresses, but reading the archives of this list, the people discuss about a 10bit prefix. Is FEC0::/10 valid now, or still a draft or subject to change and FEC0::/48 still standard? Thanks for your help -mg IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FEC0::/10 or /48?
Hi Mario, The new addressing architecture has been approved for publication as a Draft Standard, and should be published shortly. So, the FECO::/10 is official. Margaret At 01:58 PM 1/16/2003 +0100, Mario Goebbels wrote: Hi! I think my question is best answered in this mailing list. When I read books about IPv6, they mention always an 48bit prefix for SL addresses, but reading the archives of this list, the people discuss about a 10bit prefix. Is FEC0::/10 valid now, or still a draft or subject to change and FEC0::/48 still standard? Thanks for your help -mg IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IPv6 w.g. Last Call on A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address Block
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the following document as an Informational RFC: Title : A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of Bits of an IPv6 Address Block Author(s) : M. Blanchet Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2003-1-6 Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor editorial comments to the authors. This last call period will on January 30, 2003. Bob Hinden / Margaret Wasserman IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IPv6 w.g. Last Call on IP Forwarding Table MIB
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the following document as a Proposed Standard: Title : IP Forwarding Table MIB Author(s) : M. Wasserman Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-02.txt Pages : 30 Date : 2002-11-7 Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor editorial comments to the document editor. This last call period will end on January 30, 2003. Bob Hinden IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on IP Forwarding Table MIB
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Bob Hinden wrote: This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the following document as a Proposed Standard: Advancing as a Proposed Standard? I assume you didn't mean DS because I'm not sure how widely that is implemented yet, but rather publish it as PS ? Title : IP Forwarding Table MIB Author(s) : M. Wasserman Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-02.txt Pages : 30 Date: 2002-11-7 Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor editorial comments to the document editor. This last call period will end on January 30, 2003. Bob Hinden IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address Block
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Bob Hinden Margaret Wasserman wrote: This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the following document as an Informational RFC: Title : A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of Bits of an IPv6 Address Block Author(s) : M. Blanchet Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.txt Pages : 8 Date: 2003-1-6 I don't have problems with this, though I'm not sure how useful this is for most (but for some, certainly). A point I've raised in the past is, most operators are not really interested in optimizing the address assignments on a bit level (provided that the number of customers is not so high it would be required). Rather, here we do so with nibbles. Those are easier to calculate in the head and work better with reverse DNS delegations too. But I'm not sure whether this kind of coarser approach for flexible assignment calls for some text or not. A mention at most, I think. What do others feel? -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
