@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-00.txt
All,
This Last Call received exactly 1 comment (thanks Alex!). If you
have read this document, please indicate either your support or
opposition to being advanced. Silence is not interpreted as consensus.
Regards
IMHO it's a no brainer. Two nits in one sentence:
>Hence. future
>assignments from this registry are discouraged but in exceptional
>circumstances are to be made through Standards Action [IANABIS].
s/./,/
[IANABIS] is now RFC5226 and should be a normative reference, I think.
Regards
sorry, replied to author with typos, but neglected to state my support
for the draft on the list. I agree it is a good idea to document and
advance the idea of a registry.
one substantive comment was that the example of a conflicting IID
FDFF:FFF:FFF:FFFE should cite the source of the conflic
All,
This Last Call received exactly 1 comment (thanks Alex!). If you
have read this document, please indicate either your support or
opposition to being advanced. Silence is not interpreted as consensus.
Regards,
Brian
Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
This message starts a 3-week 6MA
Strange that this draft requests reserving 64 0 rightmost bits of an
address to be 'subnet router anycast' referring to rfc4291 because:
-rfc4291 uses 'subnet-router' instead of 'subnet router'.
-rfc5156.txt uses all 128 0 bits to mean 'default unicast route'. This
may imply a default unicast
