On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Brian, > That sounds fair to me. I will come up with text with SHOULD language > for per-prefix enabling of privacy addresses. I just have to figure out > how it will interact/override with the global enable/disable option. > > Pekka, > If I make this change, would you still like me to add specific defaults > for ULAs?
I can live with 2001::/16 + 2002::/16, but I think that's a bad choice for multiple reasons. What if we invent 6to4v2 which uses 2005::/16 and we'd like to automatically apply these semantics to it? What if we run out of 2001::/16 for native allocations? -- actually we've already 1/3 used it up. Thus being generic and excluding just those that we _know_ aren't really, really global might seem as a better approach -- one that we might not need to tweak e.g., 2-3 years down the road.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
