3.0 IANA Considerations
The following prefix is reserved for use in documentation and MUST
NOT be assigned to any operational IPv6 nodes:
2000:0001::/32
== I do not understand why this reservation has been made; I see zero
technical reason for it -- and it would prevent the use of
On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 07:02 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lets try to avoid a lengthily discussion on this. I think the w.g.
has
more pressing issues. If others have strong feeling on this, I am
happy to
change it. Or remove it.
It's clear we won't converge rapidly on a specific
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Michel Py wrote:
The specific format of global unicast address under the 2000::/3
prefix is:
| 3 | n bits | 61-n bits | 64 bits |
+---++---++
|001|
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 01:54:58AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
I, for one, am very adamantly against reserving 2000:0001::/32. That
wastes a complete 2000::/16 (if, for some purposes, a whole /16 or first
parts of it are needed). An extremely bad idea, IMO. I'd recommend taking
something
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Global Unicast Address Format for the 2000::/3
Prefix
Author(s)
Pekka Savola wrote:
3.0 IANA Considerations
The following prefix is reserved for use in documentation and MUST
NOT be assigned to any operational IPv6 nodes:
2000:0001::/32
== I do not understand why this reservation has been made; I see zero
technical reason for it -- and it
Pekka,
draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-00.txt
== how did the first draft suddently jump to a w.g. document? I don't
recall this question being raised, unless it was years ago (or I've missed
something). Not that I disagree with (most of) the contents, but some
parts at least seem to be
I will agree with Alain that a reserved prefix for documentation is
good. But, I don't understand why '2000:0001::/32 was chosen instead
of '2000:::/32'. Can someone speak to this?
The tradition that I learned from John Postel of always reserving the
beginning and end of any address space
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Bob Hinden wrote:
draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-00.txt
== how did the first draft suddently jump to a w.g. document? I don't
recall this question being raised, unless it was years ago (or I've missed
something). Not that I disagree with (most of) the contents, but
Pekka,
Thanks.
Oh, btw, in the references too.
At least I was consistent :-)
It seemed to me like a convenient place to do it as this was defining the
2000::/3 prefix. It could be done elsewhere, but hopefully this draft can
get through the process quickly.
Well, if one believes this
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Bob Hinden wrote:
But I'm not sure it can.
I, for one, am very adamantly against reserving 2000:0001::/32. That
wastes a complete 2000::/16 (if, for some purposes, a whole /16 or first
parts of it are needed). An extremely bad idea, IMO. I'd recommend taking
something
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Michel Py wrote:
The specific format of global unicast address under the 2000::/3
prefix is:
| 3 | n bits | 61-n bits | 64 bits |
+---++---++
|001| routing prefix| subnet ID |
12 matches
Mail list logo
