On 9 Oct 2014, at 12:03, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > it doesn't make sense to specify something that breaks SLAAC. > > protocol design is politics. we want to make it clear to the address > delegation authorities that not delegating a large enough address block will > lead to breakage. > > in my view, if we let this principle slide, then the risk isn't that the > delegations are /80s, but that they will be /128s. and you're back to IPv6 > NAT anyhow.
So - provocative question - should this draft be Experimental in status instead if it’s diving below /64 boundary? Tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
