Update to BCP-38?

Fri Oct 4 03:34:03 UTC 2019

On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 08:20:22 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:

> As for requirements for IPv6 routers, how do you think about the
> following requirement by rfc4443?

44443 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
     Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. A. Conta, S. Deering, M. Gupta, Ed..
     March 2006. (Format: TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2463) (Updates
     RFC2780) (Updated by RFC4884) (Also STD0089) (Status: INTERNET
     STANDARD) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC4443)

> rfc1812 says:

1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers. F. Baker, Ed.. June 1995.
     (Format: TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1716, RFC1009) (Updated by
     RFC2644, RFC6633) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (DOI:
     10.17487/RFC1812)

I suppose you never considered that in the 11 years intervening, we decided
that maybe things should be done differently.

> IPv6 specification is fatally broken in various ways.

Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to be fatally broken from where I am, or
from where Google is, or from where Facebook is, or from where most
of the cellphone companies are.

You must have a different definition of "fatally broken" than the rest of us.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191003/1d7b3073/attachment.sig>