[130845] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Oberman)
Sat Oct 16 22:55:45 2010
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 BST."
<m2sk05r60z.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:55:19 -0700
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100
> From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
>
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> >> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
>
> must be some blowhard i have plonked
>
> > 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.)
>
> juniper and cisco implement today
Unfortunately, a couple of other router vendors whose top of the line
units I have tested recently did not.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
