Folks, I recommend to either update the below proposed text with explicit addition of RFC4193 Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses as a possible pool or forget about this proposed change below all together.
Kind regards, R. On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 8:21 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica= [email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > > > > This draft version looks much better. > > > > Please consider the following change in Section 3..1: > > > > OLD> > > L, the locator length, is flexible, and an operator is free to use the > locator length of their choice. > > <OLD > > > > NEW> > > LOC MUST be drawn from a globally addressable IPv6 unicast prefix or one > of the following Special Purpose IPv6 Prefixes [RFC 6890]: > > > > - Benchmarking (i.e., testing only) > > - Documentation (i.e., testing only) > > - Unique-Local > > > > L, the locator length, MUST be less than or equal to the length of the > prefix from which LOC was drawn. > > <NEW > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
