Hi Mark,
*Except /127*, we support rfc3627 and the appendix B.2 of rfc5375.
They
have properly addressed the implication for using longer prefix than
/64.
So where is there reference to Appendix B.2 of RFC5375 in the /127
draft? The draft does not mention anything about the 70/71 bit
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Miya Kohno mko...@juniper.net wrote:
Hi Mark,
*Except /127*, we support rfc3627 and the appendix B.2 of rfc5375.
They
have properly addressed the implication for using longer prefix than
/64.
So where is there reference to Appendix B.2 of RFC5375 in
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:30:25 -0400
Christopher Morrow christopher.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Miya Kohno mko...@juniper.net wrote:
Hi Mark,
*Except /127*, we support rfc3627 and the appendix B.2 of rfc5375.
They
have properly addressed the implication
If the /127 draft is a rebuttal of RFC3627
and if it isn't? maybe it's just a bug report on one bit?
Other examples - there are probably more - of things I think that should
be discussed, beyond what is in RFC3627 -
where is that darned immersion heater?
randy
