-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm expecting, by the way, that the deprecation will leave fec0::/10
to be treated as global-scope unicast addresses, rather than making
fec0::/10 addresses cease to function altogether.
That's an interesting expectation. As co-author of the
At 06:07 PM 8/5/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's an interesting expectation. As co-author of the planned
deprecation draft, I'd been assuming a more classical deprecation
action, in which we would simply state the previous semantics of
FEC0::/10, state that the prefix SHOULD NOT be
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Zefram wrote:
...
I'm expecting, by the way, that the deprecation will leave fec0::/10
to be treated as global-scope unicast addresses, rather than making
fec0::/10 addresses cease to function altogether.
That's an interesting expectation. As co-author
From: Michael Thomas writes:
If you truly want to deprecate FECO::/10, I'd say
that it shouldn't be reserved to IANA, but given
to registries with explicit mandate to allocate
it immediately.
This could cause problems with hardware that already is installed, and is
configured to treat
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 02:52:32PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
No. That would admit the possibility of reusing that prefix for some
other purpose. What we really need is for all hosts and routers to
filter FEC0://10 packets unless explicitly configured to do otherwise.
Actually while I agree
Zefram wrote:
...
I'm expecting, by the way, that the deprecation will leave fec0::/10
to be treated as global-scope unicast addresses, rather than making
fec0::/10 addresses cease to function altogether.
That's an interesting expectation. As co-author of the planned
deprecation draft, I'd
That's an interesting expectation. As co-author of the planned
deprecation draft, I'd been assuming a more classical deprecation
action, in which we would simply state the previous semantics of
FEC0::/10, state that the prefix SHOULD NOT be used, but leave it
permanently assigned by IANA.
