On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:48:27AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > | So, by trying to guess the meaning of silence, we should not forget that > | there probably are lots of people there that still have strong feelings > | about this.
Silence indicates [whatever I want to happen] :) > I disagree. We should absolutely forget that. If any of those people > are out there, let them speak for themselves, rather than us just assuming > that surely they must exist. If someone believes they exist, but aren't > on this list, then send a message to them, indicating what is being discussed > and invite a reply. > > But let's actually look for real opinions, rather than rehashed third > hand accounts of what some unknown other person's opinion just might be. I'd rather aggregate all my ptp links into a single /64 than some notable fraction of a /(64-48). As a user, I would file bugs against any vendor that prohibited me from doing so. As such, I'd say that codifying a hard requirement for /64 is contrary to what I would use, EUI-64 not withstanding. Clearly autoconfig and EUI-64 and whatnot all require /64s, and I don't have any issue with that. I even don't mind requiring /119s (rfc 2526). But /64? Yuck. Makes a big hole in my aggregation. -- David Terrell | "I went into Barnes and Noble to look for a Prime Minister, Nebcorp | book on A.D.D., but I got bored and left." [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Benjy Feen http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
