On 2008-10-03 05:00, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
> TJ,
>
> I understand that you do not see the need to a prefix longer than 64
> bits; however, my customer has an application for extended address. As
> a result, there is an engineering need.
>
> I am not sure that I see any pain for current providers or
> environments. Those who are deploying 64 bit prefixes and want to
> stick with them are free to do so. As to vendor pain, going down the
> road of minimizing vendor pain leads us back to every vendor selling a
> proprietary networking protocol.
>
> As to breaking the RFC, although no one can stop me, it increases my
> pain, which I have an incentive to avoid.
Then your remedy is to write a draft aimed at the 6man WG with the goal
of updating RFC 4291 accordingly, and asking the WG to consider it.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
