[130861] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Warren Kumari)
Sun Oct 17 22:07:24 2010
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
In-Reply-To: <20101017025519.EB7C91CC3E@ptavv.es.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:07:53 -0400
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 Oct 16, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100
>> From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
>>=20
>>>>> =
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>>>> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
>>=20
>> must be some blowhard i have plonked
>>=20
>>> 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.)
>>=20
>> juniper and cisco implement today
>=20
> Unfortunately, a couple of other router vendors whose top of the line
> units I have tested recently did not.
Simple Matter of Programming ;-)
Please suggest to said vendors that they implement this -- IMO it's the =
right way to do it...
W
> --=20
> 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
>=20
