On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Miya Kohno <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > >> > *Except /127*, we support rfc3627 and the appendix B.2 of rfc5375. > They >> > have properly addressed the implication for using longer prefix than >> > /64. >> > >> >> So where is there reference to Appendix B.2 of RFC5375 in the /127 >> draft? The draft does not mention anything about the 70/71 bit issue,
mark, what is that issue? that addrarch asks that 70/71 essentially both be 0? What's the harm in them being 1? Taking the pragmatic approach that 'bits are bits' in these cases they are not part of the host-address so they shouldn't matter, I think. Curious though, since lots of things seem to be encoded for mysterious reasons in the 128 bits of an ipv6 address. -chris -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
