So, what about a text such as:
Several IETF documents mention site local addresses [RFC2772, RFC2894,
RFC3082, RFC3111, RFC3142, RFC3177]. These mentions should be removed if
and when these documents are updated. In particular, the references to
site local addresses should be removed from the
Tim Chown wrote:
I think we will see a lot of people using fd00::/48 or fd00::/64 for
their sites/links purely becuase it's less effort to type.
If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?
One year of extremely heated discussion, appeal, gazillions
of email, just to
Alain Durand wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
I think we will see a lot of people using fd00::/48 or fd00::/64 for
their sites/links purely becuase it's less effort to type.
If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?
One year of extremely heated discussion, appeal, gazillions
of
Alain Durand wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
I think we will see a lot of people using fd00::/48 or fd00::/64 for
their sites/links purely becuase it's less effort to type.
If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?
The opportunity to avoid this numbering clash. Idiots who use
Zefram wrote:
Alain Durand wrote:
If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?
The opportunity to avoid this numbering clash. Idiots who use fd00::/48
will clash with each other, but the rest of us avoid clashes with each
other and with the idiots.
If you look at
BTW, one last parting thought on this subject (and then I'll
shut up) is that we have perhaps an opportunity to specify
the following good thing:
A packetization layer should set an ECN codepoint in
the packets it sends IFF it is also doing Packetization
Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD) and
