A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
Author(s) : Arifumi Matsumoto
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address
Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers
Author(s)
This quick update adds Stuart Cheshire as a co-author, since he proposed the
final compromise.
Ole, over to you.
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-04.txt
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:37:10 -0700
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Reply-To:
Thanks for the feedback.
I just want to confirm something.
You wrote:
If you choose to do this, it is further recommended that you reserve the
entire /64 so that - if needed in the future - you can expand this
configuration _without_ a major renumbering event.
This is the essence of what I
Responding to a couple of different things below inline with [WEG]
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Usman
Latif
If you choose to do this, it is further recommended that you reserve the
entire /64 so that - if needed in the future - you can expand this
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:23 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.comwrote:
Responding to a couple of different things below inline with [WEG]
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Usman Latif
If you choose to do this, it is further recommended that you
Thanks Wes for the feedback.
Some points I'd like to further comment on:
i. You mentioned that a re-address event is no different from re-masking the
links-
this is true to an extent but I think changing subnet mask would still be
relatively easier to manage than having to re-address all links
On 9/21/12 12:03 AM, Usman Latif wrote:
I suppose bodies like IETF all need to ensure that there are
definitive guidelines around addressing architectures so that future
implementations of procotol stacks and features donot overlap with
bits in the IPv6 address space that could potentially
Indeed, and I see a sheer wastage in blocking the entire /64 whose one /127 is
used on p2p links.
There are many deployments that already assign bunch of /64 (or lower) prefixes
per hierarchy and encode bunch of useful info in 72-96 and then assign
thousands of /127s out of each /96 (or
