On 2008-11-25 10:02, Tony Li wrote: > > > |Indeed. Actually it escaped via RFC 1881 (December 1995), and it was > |intentional. I personally believe that the registries have made it > |too easy to get PI prefixes, but that was a choice of the operational > |community. However, it doesn't change what I was trying to say, > |which is that the *design* assumption for IPv6 was PA, so it seems > |appropriate to call that Plan A. > > > Interesting. So you're saying that it's perfectly ok for the operational > folks to set aside the stated routing architecture and do something else?
Not exactly, but I think we do have to try to make future technology intersect with reality. Brian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
