> On Oct 9, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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?
No. I think you are putting way too much weight on an informational document here. - Mark > > Tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
