[134565] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jan 7 04:02:32 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D26B7C9.3090205@jima.tk>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 01:00:29 -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 10:50 PM, Jima wrote:
> 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.
>>=20
>> As a draft, it hasn't been through the full process and shouldn't be =
considered
>> to have the same weight as an RFC.
>>=20
>> While it intends to obsolete RFC-3177, it doesn't obsolete it yet =
and, indeed, may
>> never do so.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Jima
I believe that the draft, even if it were to be adopted as is, does not =
intend to obsolete the /64, just the /48
recommendation in 3177.
Owen
