Geoff,
[cable-modems] was a scenario that was envisaged by the authors of the
draft as being consistent with the intended re-designated use and
consistent with the caveats noted in the draft.
For a closed system, which is what you are talking about, one could make
CLNS and TMIP work!! If you can do that, why not simply use the
specified standard, IPv6? Doing otherwise discredits CableLabs and
probably causes a CM respin.
The authors were interested in providing a succinct statement of the
administrative actions required to redefine the use of this currently
reserved address block.
That is necessary but NOT sufficient. There needs to be motivation.
This was the case in RFCs 1597 and 1918, and it should be so here as
well. You are asking for the last allocation of addresses. Let's have
the reasoning be sound, please.
It would be quite appropriate, as already noted in the draft, to
generate additional material describing use cases and actions required
on the part of network admins to enable use of this address prefix in
various scenarios.
That's fine, but without the motivation I would strongly object to this
document advancing.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf