[134562] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jima)
Fri Jan 7 01:50:26 2011
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 00:50:49 -0600
From: Jima <nanog@jima.tk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <10FB3518-6470-4F14-963C-B3150FABE667@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/7/2011 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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.
Fully understood; I wasn't meaning to present it as irrefutable
evidence that the /64 & /48 mindset is flawed, but as a timely
counterpoint to people expounding the virtues of 3177 without cautiously
acknowledging that its recommendations aren't necessarily for everyone.
I apologize if my intentions weren't terribly clear -- that may be a
good cue for me to go to bed.
Jima
