And we're still persisting with a recommendation for /126 for p2p router links and against /127?
I guess that's the current state of things. bias disclosure: I'm in favour of /127, vis. http://www.apnic.net/meetings/26/program/apops/matsuzaki-ipv6-p2p.pdf In light of Maz's presentation (see link) I do think that the text in B.2.1 saying "The usage of this subnet address length does not lead to any additional considerations ..." might, in fact, not be the whole truth. On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wording nit in 2.4.2 > Current: > HD is calculated for sites (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead of based > on addresses like with IPv4 > should read: > HD is calculated for prefixes (e.g. on a basis of /48), instead of based > on endpoint addresses like with IPv4 > > > It is not clear that the 6bone space discussion is appropriate for this > document, and restating what is effectively a policy will cause a problem in > the future. Removing the last sentence of 2. and all of 2.3 will not impact > the intent of this document. Given that the stated target audience is > network managers that have not figured out an IPv6 addressing plan, > confusing them with a discussion about ancient history is not helpful. > > Tony > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Jari Arkko >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:02 AM >> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Pasi Eronen; >> Ron Bonica >> Subject: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes >> >> Folks, >> >> Draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon was in IESG review and there was a lot of >> discussion about the recommendations an earlier version of the draft >> had >> about prefix lengths longer than 64 bits. The draft has now been >> revised >> to what we believe is reasonably consistent with reality and existing >> IPv6 address architecture RFCs. However, it would be good to give the >> 6MAN WG a chance to review the text. >> >> Please take a look at the document and the given two sections in >> particular: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10#section-3.1 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10#appendix-B >> >> If there is no objection the draft will be approved. Please comment by >> September 30th. >> >> Jari >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> [email protected] >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
