On 10 Oct 2014, at 13:43, Townsley.net <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
Hmmm.. the draft says it’s intended status is Standards Track, not
Informational? Just a typo?
Network Working Group P. Pfister
Internet-Draft B. Paterson
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: March 23, 2015 J. Arkko
Ericsson
September 19, 2014
Tim_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
