- Original Message -
From: Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
To: m...@sap.com
Cc: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com; Thomas Narten
nar...@us.ibm.com; ietf@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:47 PM
Hi Martin,
On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
On 01/27/2013 11:19 AM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
To: m...@sap.com
Cc: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com; Thomas Narten
nar...@us.ibm.com; ietf@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:47 PM
Hi Martin,
So... we probably need a IPv6 update for BCP5 (RFC1918), doesnt that
make sense?
Todd
--
Regards TSG
Ex-Cruce-Leo
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended
recipient.
On 1/27/13 10:07 AM, tglassey wrote:
So... we probably need a IPv6 update for BCP5 (RFC1918), doesnt that
make sense?
My understanding is people have been using ULAs (RFC 4193) for this type
of functionality.
Todd
On 1/27/13 12:19 PM, t.p. wrote:
The point that Thomas made and John endorsed is that when we want to
speed things up, our current procedures allow us to do just that. We
do not need a formal process (more complications, more work). And as
John pointed out, having two independent Last Call
On 1/27/13 10:07 AM, tglassey wrote:
So... we probably need a IPv6 update for BCP5 (RFC1918), doesnt that
make sense?
My understanding is people have been using ULAs (RFC 4193) for this type
of functionality.
That's certainly one option.
The other is just to apply for some IPv6 address space
About the idea of an experiment:
On 1/25/2013 5:07 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Responses to some points below but I'd really like to ask
people to consider a few things here:
- what's proposed is an experiment, it'd likely get tried out
a few times and won't consume any huge resource
