Bob Hinden wrote:
...
> >
> >I, for one, am very adamantly against reserving 2000:0001::/32. That
> >wastes a complete 2000::/16 (if, for some purposes, a whole /16 or first
> >parts of it are needed). An extremely bad idea, IMO. I'd recommend taking
> >something from 2001, like 2001:0001::/32 or 2001:FFFF::/32.
>
> I viewed it as opening up the rest of the 2000::/16 prefix for /32
> allocations. Currently all of 2000::/16 is reserved in
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments
>
> I guess it depends on how one looks at it.
>
> >And this kind of "which one is the right block to reserve" discussions
> >could delay the other parts of the draft, which was my main motivation for
> >keeping it outside of this one.
>
> Lets try to avoid a lengthily discussion on this. I think the w.g. has
> more pressing issues. If others have strong feeling on this, I am happy to
> change it. Or remove it.
It's clear we won't converge rapidly on a specific choice, so I'd
suggest removing it so we can go quickly to a Last Call on this draft.
Actually, we could simply ask IANA to reserve a /32 prefix for documentation
purposes; it doesn't need an RFC.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
