> IMO RFC 6164 although being very authoritative and direct about use of /127
> (from the same /64) on each p2p link is not giving us any insight into other
> current (or future) reserved addresses that were explained in more detail in
> RFC 5375 so in doing that RFC 6164 is raising doubts in ou
Hi,
Based on the response i have received so far it appears that there are still
gaps in our approach towards IPv6 addressing (maybe the original way the stack
was written also is not ideal - but lets not go there and try to find the best
way out with what we've got)
IMO RFC 6164 al
perhaps we learned some things over time?
randy
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Hi,
Work on the RA-Guard specification in another IETF WG
drove the creation of two I-Ds currently in this WG:
- draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers
- draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain
The RA Guard work in the other IETF WG is currently
*blocked* pending the 6MAN WG approvin
