Ship it.
Brian
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
For reference, RFC 4897 would have fixed this downref problem;
it just came a few months too late.
Brian
On 2007-06-29 18:07, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Jinmei,
You have a point. I agree with you about the downref rule being an NOP
for implementers (I do not care either). This is another r
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.82% | 15 | 11.39% | 131839 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9.41% | 16 | 10.34% | 119670 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10.00% | 17 | 8.20% |94878 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8.24% | 14 | 7.60% |878
From: Leo Vegoda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> The core problem seems to be a very soft definition of "local". If that's
> firmed up then there might be a way to convince people that ULA-C can be
> restricted to "local" networks and not be used as a way of getting cheaper
> PI space, or a way of get
On 29 Jun 2007, at 7:36pm, Scott Leibrand wrote:
[...]
The RIRs currently require small networks to get provider
aggregatable (PA) space from their provider(s).
This just isn't true. Both APNIC and the RIPE NCC will assign
prefixes longer than an IPv4 /24. APNIC even document the fact quit
Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
Section 3.1 of RFC 2461 describes intended behavior when a host
receives an RA without an advertised prefix:
"Multiple prefixes can be associated with the same link. By
default, hosts learn all on-link prefixes from Router
Advertisements. However,
