> > then you will join us supporting the /127 document and it won't be a > > problem, will it. > > > > Why won't you and the other authors do a proper job with it then? It > doesn't address all the implications that arise. It should, point by > point address, all the issues in RFC3627. It should address the points > I raised here 2 weeks ago. It doesn't read to me as a proper > justification of why the RFCs it contradicts should be contradicted. > e.g. Where is the text explaining the implications to bits 70 and 71, > if there are any, and do they need to be managed, and if so, how?
*Except /127*, we support rfc3627 and the appendix B.2 of rfc5375. They have properly addressed the implication for using longer prefix than /64. Miya -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
