%
% >% from the above I don't know if Bill have autoconfigured routers...
% >% did you?
% > Yes. This involved a number of boxes. (see the recent thread on
% > host/router)
%
% (as there were many comments) RFC2462 is just for hosts, not for
% routers.
But, as the discussion pointed out, the IPv6 concept of "host"
vs "router" may be done on a per-interface basis. As you mentioned,
you found this to be a bit too flexable and refined this based on
operational issues.
% > The 6bone routing guideline is oriented toward ISPs, as are the RIR
% > delegations practices. IX'en are different than ISPs and so the ISP
% > rules applied to IX'en often break.
%
% ...therefore I tried to propose a written rule for IX prefix assignment
% in the following email (like "you should accept /32 routes under
% 3ffe:800::/24"). do you have any comments?
This is an active area of discussion, at least in the RIPE and
ARIN communities and I expect that we should divert further discussion
there. (for ARIN, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is the venue)
--
--bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
