[130841] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Oct 16 19:57:28 2010
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:27:11 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikMPJT3XE745aH5hE3gdNyrfLUGcjh=+FpW8s41@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400
Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
The IETF standards process is different to other standards
organisations - publication of an RFC doesn't make it a standard. It is
much more pragmatic, as operational history is also used as an input
into the decision.
> Bill Bogstad
