Le 2013-02-02 à 16:02, Fernando Gont <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On 02/02/2013 07:40 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >>> Both are *experiments*. Neither is a standard. >>> >>> With respect to Softwire, they decided to standardise >>> something other than 4rd. Had they decided to >>> standardise 4rd, my views would be different, >>> but that wasn't the decision actually made in Softwire. >>> >>> For *experiments*, a small shared use experimental >>> allocation *under RFC-3692 rules* should be both >>> sufficient and an appropriate approach -- and also >>> can be used with any other experiments that might arise >>> in future. >> >> Different understanding. >> >> Making the reservation for one design, experimental or not, is a guarantee >> that no future design with conflict with it, experimental or not. > > The point is that if't an experiment, you don't really want to > permanently-asign any resources to it. -- that's probably why run > suggested a "shared allocation". > > If the experiment turns out to be successful, you get the actual assignment. As answered to Ran: - Making the reservation for one design, experimental or not, is a guarantee that no future design will conflict with it, experimental or not. - A central registry is the appropriate tool for this. Besides reserving 1/2^14 of the unused space, for which there hasn't been any request in more than 6 years now, shouldn't be considered a big deal (IMHO). Regards, RD > > Cheers, > -- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
