Pekka,
While I would have liked to remove the mention of compatible addresses
completely, deprecation as proposed by Bob is good enough for me.
Thanks!
Some might argue (and argued in the past) that there should be some health
warnings about the use of mapped addresses (e.g., a reference to
now-
Kurtis,
> New or updated implementations are not required to support this
> address type. Existing implementations and deployments may continue
> to use these addresses.
Shouldn't we be a bit more explicit on what routers/hosts should do with
these addresses when found?
I don't think i
Margaret,
At 12:52 PM 03/16/2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Bob,
Should there also be an upate to the IANA considerations section asking
IANA to list this allocation as deprecated?
Good question, I had not thought about that. What is currently listed on
the IANA pages for IPv6 address space (
Kurtis Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
> > New or updated implementations are not required to support this
> > address type. Existing implementations and deployments may continue
> > to use these addresses.
>
> Shouldn't we be a bit
Bob,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
> At last weeks IPv6 session in Minneapolis, the working group reached a
> consensus to deprecate the "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address". This email is
> to verify this consensus on the mailing list
Agree.
and to review the proposed
> text to
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:58 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>> Are RFC 2893 Para. 5.2 and 5.3 going to be updated accordingly?
>> Otherwise, I have no objection.
>
>RFC2893 is going to be obsoleted any day now, by
>draft-ietf-mech-v2-xx, so this is not a
