>> Unassigned:
>>
>> 6/8 + 57/512 (2.5521177519070384759753095557382e+38
>> + 3.788299787987010237775850121799e+37
>> of addresses)
>> This is the remaining of the address space, which has not
>> been assigned.
for implementers, it needs to be known that the unassigned region is
unicast addresses, not just "unassigned".
otherwise, implemnters cannot implement the code to handle these
"future allocation" addresses. in my understanding this is the
main reason for the wording change between RFC and i-d.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Randy Bush
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Alex Conta
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Randy Bush
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Alex Conta
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Randy Bush
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Thomas Narten
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Thomas Narten
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Alex Conta
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing... Thomas Narten
- Question about draft-ietf-ngtrans-introduction... itojun
- Question about draft-ietf-ngtrans-introduction... Chae-yong Chong
- RE: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Christian Huitema
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing... Thomas Narten
- RE: W.G. Last Call on "IP Version 6 Addressing Arch... Christian Huitema
