Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:16:52 -0700
From: Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| On another note, we have shipping IPv6 products.
| I think is is getting very late in the game to
| invent yet another address format that nodes
| are supposed to recognize and give priority to.
I absolutely agree with this. Further, I believe that 38 bits of
identifier is plenty for gaining lower collision chances with
non-routable addresses (which is all any of this can possibly achieve).
Hence, I see no real reason at all to stray from FEC0::/10 - and lots
of reasons to remain in that space.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
