Tony Hain wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > ... > > > The requirement was met fine by the SL prefix; the only reason they > > > still are ambiguous is because both Bob and I put our > > drafts to remove > > > ambiguity from SLs on the back burner due to the deprecation > > > situation. > > > > Sure, at one level it doesn't matter whether the limited > > addresses are FEC0:xxxx::/48 or as proposed in draft-hinden. > > I think it's better for existing code to leave FEC0::/10 > > reserved and deprecated, but that's a secondary argument. > > >From a software perspective the prefix doesn't matter. At some point the WG > is going to have to decide if the costs (including the time delay) for > changing any hardware that recognizes FEC0::/10 outweighs the perceived > advantages of a 'clean' prefix, or not.
Please read carefully the exact text of the "deprecation" section of the deprecation draft, which is coming very shortly (as requested in Vienna). I think its phrasing addresses this point. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
