On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:10 PM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/26/12 9:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> There is clearly two set of recommendations over the same addressing >>> scenario which I am only trying to clarify with the IETF community. >>> >> There aren't really. The world moved on from 3627 and the scenario > described in 6164 represents both observed reality and expectations. > > The confusion aired from Usman is also with me. The potential address overlap in lower-64 bit space while assigning prefix longer than /64 (in RFC5375) seems to me a valid concern.I am wondering if the community regarded these potential address overlaps are no longer of concerns at all while RFC 6164 was published. George
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
