Brian E Carpenter wrote: > ... > > The requirement was met fine by the SL prefix; the only reason they > > still are ambiguous is because both Bob and I put our > drafts to remove > > ambiguity from SLs on the back burner due to the deprecation > > situation. > > Sure, at one level it doesn't matter whether the limited > addresses are FEC0:xxxx::/48 or as proposed in draft-hinden. > I think it's better for existing code to leave FEC0::/10 > reserved and deprecated, but that's a secondary argument.
>From a software perspective the prefix doesn't matter. At some point the WG is going to have to decide if the costs (including the time delay) for changing any hardware that recognizes FEC0::/10 outweighs the perceived advantages of a 'clean' prefix, or not. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
