Quality Quorum wrote: > > > I find this surprising. The decision to scrap TLA/NLA was taken > > a long time ago, and in any case it's always been clear that > > such boundaries were not architectural, but merely conventions > > in the address assignment scheme. > > I would say existence of thses conventions (I am talking about TLA) made > incoming transition to v6 a way more feasible. > > > So any implementation that takes any notice of TLA/NLA was broken > > anyway. The only boundary that > > should affect code is the /64 boundary, which is why the paragraph > > that Pekka cited is valuable. > > I suppose 125-bit LPM will significantly slow down acceptance of ipv6. > > I suppose that v6 will benefit from administrative steps setting > limits on LPM, at least for transitional period.
I'd agree, that is why the /64 boundary is so important. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
