IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
nanog at jima.tk
Fri Jan 7 00:50:49 CST 2011
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.
More information about the NANOG