Brian E Carpenter wrote: >That's an interesting expectation. As co-author of the planned >deprecation draft, I'd been assuming a more classical deprecation >action, in which we would simply state the previous semantics of >FEC0::/10, state that the prefix SHOULD NOT be used, but leave it >permanently assigned by IANA. > >This would break nothing that runs today.
Would a new implementation then be permitted to not implement the site-local semantics? The above sounds like full implementation would remain mandatory, which makes deprecation less of a win than it could be. Perhaps the question is: are we deprecating the use or the implementation of site-locals? Perhaps we are deprecating both to different degrees? -zefram -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
