> On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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? I was referring to the why64 document. - Mark > > 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
