Hi, Brian, On 12/18/2012 05:06 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 18/12/2012 02:01, Fernando Gont wrote: > ... >> Nobody even suggested that. For instance, if these addresses had a >> lifetime (in the RFC4941 sense), they wouldn't be called "stable" in the >> first place. > > I suggest that you add a discussion of site renumbering considerations. > The problems described in draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem need > to be avoided.
Could you please elaborate what you have in mind? (i.e., how you think this should be addressed, without rehashing the whole discussion in the aforementioned I-D -- I guess one or two paragraphs, and a reference to draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem?) Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
