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. > > Jima
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. Owen
