-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 t
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 F
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 used, but leave it
>permanent
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 c
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 used,
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 ag
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 b
> 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.
