james woodyatt wrote:
Here's why I don't care what documents allow for prefixes lengths over
64 bits: all that hardware and software already shipped to customers
that won't and can't use them.
Won't? Without modifications, sure, I agree there.
Can't? I beg to differ.
To the best of my knowled
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:57, Brian Dickson wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
Why is the IETF trying to micromanage ISP business models?
Is there a valid technical reason to allow for longer than /64
prefixes?
Almost the right question: s/allow for/not allow for/
I.e. In the absence of a (valid techn
David Conrad wrote:
Why is the IETF trying to micromanage ISP business models?
Is there a valid technical reason to allow for longer than /64 prefixes?
Almost the right question:
s/allow for/not allow for/
I.e. In the absence of a (valid technical) reason *not* to allow this,
it should be pe
Why is the IETF trying to micromanage ISP business models?
Is there a valid technical reason to allow for longer than /64 prefixes?
Regards,
-drc
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
This whole thread is based on an illusion.
The desire is to help small network operators sub
This whole thread is based on an illusion.
The desire is to help small network operators subdivide the prefix announced by
their ISP.
In principle, if the ISP follows the current guidelines, there is no issue:
even the smallest network receives a /48, and deals with it.
In practice, some ISP a
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Choosing EUI-64 format was a strategic decision taken from
a very long term (many decades) viewpoint. I see no case
for changing that choice.
Let me make the case very simple:
IF an RA advertises a /80 prefix:
- EUI-64 autoconf WILL fail
- EUI-48 autoconf WILL succeed (
All,
First, I would like ask people to move the ULA-C discussion off
the IETF main list. We have a chartered working group (IPv6;
to change to 6MAN in the next couple of days) that has an
official work item to look at ULA-C. The best way to progress
the topic is to participate that WG's effort. H
