[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Paul Vixie
paul at vix.com
Mon Jun 4 11:56:23 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> I agree that requireing the use of 64 bits for interface identifiers is a > monumental waste of address space. Is there a proposal of any type to change > the requirement to use EUI64 interface identifiers with globally routable PI > address space? no. but as someone else here has said, "the ietf is whoever shows up at the meetings or joins the mailing lists or writes internet drafts." so anyone here who wanted to propose a /112 DHCPv6 alternative to EUI64 can just do it. (of course, all that will do is expose more definitively that the resource we actually have to watch out for is routing table size, both in the DFZ and in smaller internets, and show the absurdity of arguing /56 vs. /48 for homes.)
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list