[134578] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Chown)
Fri Jan 7 09:36:13 2011
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <10FB3518-6470-4F14-963C-B3150FABE667@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:32:41 +0000
To: "Nanog Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 7 Jan 2011, at 06:11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
> 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.
The IETF data tracker shows draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites is under =
IESG review, with comments currently being made, see=20
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites/
which also notes the draft has strong support so is likely to be =
published soon.
The document is only guidance regardless.
Tim=
