Senthil, > Could we make this explicit the prefix lengths can be of any arbitrary > length? Or bit boundaries? Or nibble boundaries?
we could... MAP has to handle whatever the operator decided to delegate or assign to the end-user. can you propose text? cheers, Ole > > Thanks > > On 1/25/13 1:36 PM, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Tom, >> >>> We have two choices on this one: >>> >>> a) prohibit the use of an end user IPv6 prefix of length greater than >>> 64 bits; >>> >>> b) simply remove the reference to RFC6052, or qualify it by saying that >>> the IID conforms to Section 2.2 of RFC 6052 except in the case of end >>> user IPv6 prefixes of length greater than 64 bits. >>> >>> Any preferences? >> >> RFC6052 permits prefix lengths longer than /64. which isn't at odds with >> the current text. >> MAP of course permits any prefix length, while 6052 is limited to only 6 >> sets. >> >> the current text do state that the format is "based on", rfc6052, it does >> not say it uses the format from rfc6052. >> nor is 6052 a normative reference. what if we change s/based on/similar >> to/ ? is that clearer? >> >> cheers, >> Ole >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
