[130839] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Bogstad)
Sat Oct 16 19:52:49 2010
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400
From: Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com>
To: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
>> From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
>> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>> >
>>
>> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
>
> Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
> handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related. That
seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have
implemented them by now.
Bill Bogstad
