[134560] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jan 7 01:12:58 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D269D77.4080309@jima.tk>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:11:29 -0800
To: Jima <nanog@jima.tk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 6, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Jima wrote:
> On 1/6/2011 4:47 PM, Grant Phillips wrote:
>> I acknowledge and see the point made. There is a lot of dead space in =
the
>> IPv6 world. Are we allowing history to repeat it self? Well i'm =
swaying more
>> to no.
>>=20
>> Have you read this RFC? This is pretty satisfying in making me feel =
more
>> comfortable assigning out /48 and /64's. I can sleep at night now! :P
>>=20
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html//rfc3177
>=20
> I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you didn't get the memo from =
Monday. I guess I'll lean toward the latter.
>=20
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg06820.html
>=20
> Jima
That's a draft, and, it doesn't really eliminate the idea that /48s are =
generally
a good thing so much as it recognizes that there might be SOME =
circumstances
in which they are either not necessary or insufficient.
As a draft, it hasn't been through the full process and shouldn't be =
considered
to have the same weight as an RFC.
While it intends to obsolete RFC-3177, it doesn't obsolete it yet and, =
indeed, may
never do so.
Owen
