IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
owen at delong.com
Fri Jan 7 03:00:29 CST 2011
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.
>> 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.
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.
More information about the NANOG