On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
In short, this still needs at least one revision. Jinmei also had some
O/M/DHCPv6 consistency issues which probably need to be addressed. There is
some specification which I don't think has been implemented and should be
removed unless anyone jumps up.
[4] FEA0::/10 was previously defined as a Site-Local scoped address
prefix. This definition has been deprecated as of September 2004
[RFC3879].
I think that's a typo for FEC0::/10
As soon as the ULA draft is approved, FC00::/7 can also be marked
as Reserved by IETF.
IANA's
On , [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As soon as the ULA draft is approved, FC00::/7 can also be marked as
Reserved by IETF.
I think it would make more sense, and would be in keeping with the
proposed format of the registry if it was marked as 'Unique Local
Unicast' under
The chairs would like to make everyone aware of the following draft:
draft-huston-ip6-iana-registry-01.txt
The draft sets forth some proposals for updating the IANA registry
for IPv6 addresses. Currently, the registry does not align with
the existing IPv4 address registry or RFC 3513.
At 06:00 AM 16/12/2004, Christian Huitema wrote:
The chairs would like to make everyone aware of the following draft:
draft-huston-ip6-iana-registry-01.txt
The draft sets forth some proposals for updating the IANA registry
for IPv6 addresses. Currently, the registry does not align with
the
The chairs would like to make everyone aware of the following draft:
draft-huston-ip6-iana-registry-01.txt
The draft sets forth some proposals for updating the IANA registry
for IPv6 addresses. Currently, the registry does not align with
the existing IPv4 address registry or RFC 3513. The
At 10:54 PM 15/12/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On , [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As soon as the ULA draft is approved, FC00::/7 can also be marked as
Reserved by IETF.
I think it would make more sense, and would be in keeping with the
proposed format of the registry if
