Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> This doesn't resolve the problem of ambiguous subnet prefixes
> when routing domains merge. So it doesn't go far enough IMHO.
That's because dealing with uniqueness and merging is a deployment issue,
not an architectural issue. The proposal specifies what the routing
This doesn't resolve the problem of ambiguous subnet prefixes
when routing domains merge. So it doesn't go far enough IMHO.
Brian
Andrew White wrote:
>
> Let's ask a different question. Would the following be acceptable:
>
> -
> The address space FEC0::/10 is reserved for non-global use
Let's ask a different question. Would the following be acceptable:
-
The address space FEC0::/10 is reserved for non-global use. It is intended
not to be globally routeable. All routers MUST by default blackhole any
packet destined to FEC0::/10, and MAY return a 'destination unreachable'
me
