On 2/3/13 11:39 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
On 2/3/2013 2:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/02/2013 17:26, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
To a significant degree Randy, I agree with you in your comment about
magic bits. If I were designing IPv6 from scratch (counter-factual in
so may ways at once) I would not do it that way.
But, unless there is an actual problem with the design the IETF has
adopted, I am reluctant to change it "just because".
Which is why the draft actually proposes nothing that would change
any running code.
Brian
But it does propose to change the spec. Why? What problem does
changing the spec solve?
If it prevents someone from ascribing new utility to these bit(s) in the
future that seems like a worthwhile goal. While I'm sure that we can
come up with new and different was to apply meaning to global unicast
addresses I think the world is a simpler place when we don't.
joelja
Yours,
Joel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
